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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #72292 > unrolled thread

Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.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: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-26 14:04 +0200
    Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 13:13 +0100
      Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-26 15:23 +0200
        Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 19:43 +0100
    Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 08:31 -0700
      Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-08-26 17:52 +0100
        Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 10:01 -0700
        Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 19:44 +0100
      Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-26 17:26 +0000
        Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-26 17:47 +0000
          Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-08-26 18:19 +0000
          Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-08-26 20:25 +0000
            Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 21:44 +0100
            Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-26 21:12 +0000
      Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-08-27 22:09 +0000
        Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-27 23:00 +0000
          Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-08-28 09:10 +0000
          Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 13:02 +0200
            Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 12:17 +0100
              Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-09-03 11:10 +0100
                Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 11:55 +0100
                Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-03 14:13 +0000
                  Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-03 23:11 +0000
                  Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-09-04 10:10 +0200
                  Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-09-06 17:38 +0000
                    Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-06 15:16 -0700
                      Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-09-06 22:39 +0000
                        Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 18:46 -0400
                          Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-09-06 23:00 +0000
                            Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 15:57 -0400
                        Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 18:48 -0400
                        Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:11 -0400
                        Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 14:43 -0400
                          Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-08 08:10 -0700
                      Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alan Bowler <alantbowler@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 14:07 -0400
                        Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-29 12:57 -0700
                          Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-29 23:12 -0400
                Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-03 23:09 +0000
                  Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-04 07:48 -0700
                    Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-04 20:51 +0000
    Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-08-26 20:21 +0000
      Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-27 16:40 +0200
        Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 08:30 -0700
          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-28 10:09 +0200
        Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-08-27 19:04 +0100
          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-27 22:58 +0000
          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 04:06 -0400
          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-09-03 14:53 +0100
            Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-09-03 20:43 +0100
        Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-27 22:58 +0000
        Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 03:26 -0400
          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-28 15:56 -0700
            Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-29 00:58 +0000
        Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 06:50 +0000
          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 10:50 +0100
            Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-31 20:15 +0000
          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-29 12:46 +0200
            Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 14:28 +0100
            Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-08-29 14:40 +0000
              Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-29 23:13 +0200
                Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-30 03:28 +0000
            Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:51 +0000
              Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-30 03:27 +0000
                Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 00:25 -0400
                  Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-30 12:19 +0000
                  Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 13:37 +0200
                    Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-31 18:23 +0200
                      Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 17:37 +0000
                      Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-31 22:24 +0000
                        Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 02:35 +0200
                          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-01 07:55 -0700
                  Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:23 +0000
                    Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-01 11:52 +0000
                      Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 14:11 +0200
                      Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-04 10:41 +0000
                        Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-04 18:38 +0000
                          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-04 18:42 +0000
                            Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-04 20:58 +0000
                              Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 05:08 -0400
                                Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-05 08:03 -0700
                                  Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-05 12:15 -0700
                                    Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 11:17 +0100
                                      Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-06 07:31 -0700
                                        Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-09-09 21:32 +0000
                                          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-09 15:30 -0700
                                          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-09 22:56 +0000
                                            Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 11:10 +0200
                                              Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-10 14:23 +0000
                                                Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-10 14:11 -0400
                                                  Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 21:07 +0200
                                                    Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-10 19:29 +0000
                                                      Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-10 20:13 +0000
                          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-09-04 22:22 +0100
                            Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-04 22:35 +0000
                            Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 05:06 -0400
                          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-05 12:02 +0000
                Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-08-30 18:30 +0000
                  Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-30 22:20 +0000
                    Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-31 18:25 +0200
                  Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
                    Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-02 21:46 +0000
                    Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-02 22:44 +0000
                      Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 23:55 +0000
                        Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-09-03 14:31 +0200
                    Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-09-03 01:22 +0200
                      Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-03 01:13 +0000
              Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-31 20:20 +0000
              Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2025-09-01 14:46 +0300
                Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-01 14:33 +0000
                Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-01 08:03 -0700
          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 14:53 +0200
          Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-08-29 17:09 +0000
            Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 19:18 +0100
              Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:51 +0000
                Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 05:54 +0000
                  Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 03:06 -0400
                    Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 08:28 +0100
                      Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 05:30 -0400
                        Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 11:59 +0100
                          Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 08:26 -0400
                          Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:36 +0000
                    Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:31 +0000
                      Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
                        Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 03:10 +0000
                Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 08:13 +0100
          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-08-29 22:27 +0000
      Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-29 21:12 +0200
        Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-29 20:52 +0000
          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:34 +0000
            Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-30 11:51 +0200
            Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-08-30 15:54 +0000
              Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-30 12:13 -0700
                Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-30 19:27 +0000
                  Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-30 14:45 -0700
                Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
                  Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-02 14:45 -0700
                    Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-09-03 10:40 +0000
                      Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-03 07:59 -0700
                        Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 17:38 +0000
                          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-03 17:51 +0000
                  Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-02 22:03 +0000
              Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2025-08-30 19:34 -0400
            Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 13:44 +0200
              Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-01 02:36 +0000
                Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 01:52 -0400
                  Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:26 +0200
                  Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-01 08:01 -0700
                    Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-01 18:12 +0000
                    Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 20:15 +0200
                Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:20 +0200
          Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-30 11:49 +0200
            Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-30 17:39 +0000
              Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-31 12:40 +0200
                Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-31 08:19 -0700
                  Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-31 20:10 +0200

Page 1 of 8  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#72292 — Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth

On 2025-07-21 18:32, John Ames wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC)
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the
>>> original PC or PC/XT.
>>
>> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11,
>> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for.
> 
> Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 was
> an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while the IBM
> PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit architecture on
> an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance characteristics of the
> first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to do a head-to-head shootout.
> I don't know if it's recorded whether the Bell Labs -11 was core or
> semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz
> would have a cycle time of around 209 ns, but with the aforementioned
> 8-bit bus. As a naive approximation, that might put them anywhere from
> comparable to around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then
> the 8088's instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that.
> Definitely makes one curious...

The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more 
powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the 
PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing.
(I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a proper 
MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or PC/XT.)

   Johnny

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#72295

On 26/08/2025 13:04, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more 
> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the 
> PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing.
You could equip an *86 with a decent MMU and people did.

a 386 running Unix was WAY faster than a PDP/11.

> (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a proper 
> MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or PC/XT.)

Well yes, the 386 was what the 8086 should have been all along


-- 
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before 
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

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

#72299

On 2025-08-26 14:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 26/08/2025 13:04, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more 
>> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the 
>> PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing.
> You could equip an *86 with a decent MMU and people did.

The 8086? What decent MMU existed for that?

> a 386 running Unix was WAY faster than a PDP/11.

It was also about 15 years later than the first PDP-11, and a few years 
later than the last new implementation of any PDP-11 at all by DEC.

>> (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a 
>> proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or 
>> PC/XT.)
> 
> Well yes, the 386 was what the 8086 should have been all along

Yes, eventually it got a bit more sorted out.

   Johnny

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

#72322

On 26/08/2025 14:23, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2025-08-26 14:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 26/08/2025 13:04, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more 
>>> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the 
>>> PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing.
>> You could equip an *86 with a decent MMU and people did.
> 
> The 8086? What decent MMU existed for that?
> 
>> a 386 running Unix was WAY faster than a PDP/11.
> 
> It was also about 15 years later than the first PDP-11, and a few years 
> later than the last new implementation of any PDP-11 at all by DEC.
> 
Indeed it was.  And it was way cheaper than a VAX too


>>> (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a 
>>> proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or 
>>> PC/XT.)
>>
>> Well yes, the 386 was what the 8086 should have been all along
> 
> Yes, eventually it got a bit more sorted out.
> 
>    Johnny
> 

-- 
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as 
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

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

#72308

On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:04:07 +0200
Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:

> > Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11
> > was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while
> > the IBM PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit
> > architecture on an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance
> > characteristics of the first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to
> > do a head-to-head shootout. I don't know if it's recorded whether
> > the Bell Labs -11 was core or semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns
> > cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz would have a cycle time of around
> > 209 ns, but with the aforementioned 8-bit bus. As a naive
> > approximation, that might put them anywhere from comparable to
> > around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then the 8088's
> > instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. Definitely
> > makes one curious...  
> 
> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more 
> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the 
> PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing.
> (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a
> proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or
> PC/XT.)

The 286 had a proper MMU, but not (AFAIUI) a terribly performant one.
I've never heard of an add-on MMU for the 8086, but I admit I've never
looked. In any case, I realize now that my napkin math was way off; the
8086/88 can only perform a memory access every fourth cycle, so the
PC's approximate "cycle time" by comparison would be more like ~836 ns,
barely faster than core even *before* you factor in the 8-bit bottle-
neck or DRAM refresh. Ye gods, what a *dog.*

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

#72313

On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 08:31:18 -0700
John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:04:07 +0200
> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
> 
> > > Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11
> > > was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while
> > > the IBM PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit
> > > architecture on an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance
> > > characteristics of the first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to
> > > do a head-to-head shootout. I don't know if it's recorded whether
> > > the Bell Labs -11 was core or semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns
> > > cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz would have a cycle time of around
> > > 209 ns, but with the aforementioned 8-bit bus. As a naive
> > > approximation, that might put them anywhere from comparable to
> > > around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then the 8088's
> > > instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. Definitely
> > > makes one curious...  
> > 
> > The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more 
> > powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the 
> > PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing.
> > (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a
> > proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or
> > PC/XT.)
> 
> The 286 had a proper MMU, but not (AFAIUI) a terribly performant one.
> I've never heard of an add-on MMU for the 8086, but I admit I've never
> looked. In any case, I realize now that my napkin math was way off; the
> 8086/88 can only perform a memory access every fourth cycle, so the
> PC's approximate "cycle time" by comparison would be more like ~836 ns,
> barely faster than core even *before* you factor in the 8-bit bottle-
> neck or DRAM refresh. Ye gods, what a *dog.*
> 
Sure, but the idea was you had it *all to yourself* /Mwhah-hah-hah-hah!/  
Sorry, I don't know what came over me there.

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

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

#72314

On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 17:52:41 +0100
"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> > The 286 had a proper MMU, but not (AFAIUI) a terribly performant
> > one. I've never heard of an add-on MMU for the 8086, but I admit
> > I've never looked. In any case, I realize now that my napkin math
> > was way off; the 8086/88 can only perform a memory access every
> > fourth cycle, so the PC's approximate "cycle time" by comparison
> > would be more like ~836 ns, barely faster than core even *before*
> > you factor in the 8-bit bottle- neck or DRAM refresh. Ye gods, what
> > a *dog.* 
> 
> Sure, but the idea was you had it *all to yourself*
> /Mwhah-hah-hah-hah!/ Sorry, I don't know what came over me there.

Admittedly.

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

#72323

On 26/08/2025 17:52, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> Sure, but the idea was you had it*all to yourself*  /Mwhah-hah-hah-hah!/
> Sorry, I don't know what came over me there.

A masturbating elephant?

-- 
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, 
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

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

#72315

In comp.os.linux.misc John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:04:07 +0200
> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
> 
>> > Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11
>> > was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while
>> > the IBM PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit
>> > architecture on an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance
>> > characteristics of the first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to
>> > do a head-to-head shootout. I don't know if it's recorded whether
>> > the Bell Labs -11 was core or semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns
>> > cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz would have a cycle time of around
>> > 209 ns, but with the aforementioned 8-bit bus. As a naive
>> > approximation, that might put them anywhere from comparable to
>> > around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then the 8088's
>> > instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. Definitely
>> > makes one curious...  
>> 
>> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more 
>> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the 
>> PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing.
>> (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a
>> proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or
>> PC/XT.)
> 
> The 286 had a proper MMU, but not (AFAIUI) a terribly performant one.

That also depends on one's definition of "proper MMU".  The 286 had a 
segmented MMU, but lacked a paged MMU.  Paging was not added until the 
386.  And there are some that define "proper MMU" as "paged MMU".

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

#72316

In article <108kqnu$615d$1@dont-email.me>, Rich  <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:04:07 +0200
>> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
>> 
>>> > Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11
>>> > was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while
>>> > the IBM PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit
>>> > architecture on an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance
>>> > characteristics of the first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to
>>> > do a head-to-head shootout. I don't know if it's recorded whether
>>> > the Bell Labs -11 was core or semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns
>>> > cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz would have a cycle time of around
>>> > 209 ns, but with the aforementioned 8-bit bus. As a naive
>>> > approximation, that might put them anywhere from comparable to
>>> > around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then the 8088's
>>> > instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. Definitely
>>> > makes one curious...  
>>> 
>>> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more 
>>> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the 
>>> PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing.
>>> (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a
>>> proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or
>>> PC/XT.)
>> 
>> The 286 had a proper MMU, but not (AFAIUI) a terribly performant one.
>
>That also depends on one's definition of "proper MMU".  The 286 had a 
>segmented MMU, but lacked a paged MMU.  Paging was not added until the 
>386.  And there are some that define "proper MMU" as "paged MMU".

I don't know the MMU details for the 286, but my undestanding (formed
at the time) is that it was "proper" in that it could actually protect
running programs from each other.  PC-IX and I presume Xenix worked
on the 8088/8086 by having the C compiler emit code which stayed
in a segment -- so programs wouldn't interfere with each other
*if* nothing went wrong.  If something went wrong, (which presumably
you could easily provoke in assembler code) one program could trash
another's RAM.

What the 286 couldn't do was virtual memory, which the 386 could.
-- 
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

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

#72317

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>In article <108kqnu$615d$1@dont-email.me>, Rich  <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:04:07 +0200
>>> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> > Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11
>>>> > was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while
>>>> > the IBM PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit
>>>> > architecture on an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance
>>>> > characteristics of the first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to
>>>> > do a head-to-head shootout. I don't know if it's recorded whether
>>>> > the Bell Labs -11 was core or semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns
>>>> > cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz would have a cycle time of around
>>>> > 209 ns, but with the aforementioned 8-bit bus. As a naive
>>>> > approximation, that might put them anywhere from comparable to
>>>> > around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then the 8088's
>>>> > instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. Definitely
>>>> > makes one curious...  
>>>> 
>>>> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more 
>>>> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the 
>>>> PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing.
>>>> (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a
>>>> proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or
>>>> PC/XT.)
>>> 
>>> The 286 had a proper MMU, but not (AFAIUI) a terribly performant one.
>>
>>That also depends on one's definition of "proper MMU".  The 286 had a 
>>segmented MMU, but lacked a paged MMU.  Paging was not added until the 
>>386.  And there are some that define "proper MMU" as "paged MMU".
>
>I don't know the MMU details for the 286, but my undestanding (formed
>at the time) is that it was "proper" in that it could actually protect
>running programs from each other.  PC-IX and I presume Xenix worked
>on the 8088/8086 by having the C compiler emit code which stayed
>in a segment -- so programs wouldn't interfere with each other
>*if* nothing went wrong.  If something went wrong, (which presumably
>you could easily provoke in assembler code) one program could trash
>another's RAM.

Protected mode provided four privilege rings, task management and memory
protection at the segment level.

>
>What the 286 couldn't do was virtual memory, which the 386 could.

To the extent that a segment could be marked not-present in the
GDT or LDT, the 286 supported virtual memory.  The segment
desrcriptor supported an accessed bit.

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

#72343

According to Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan>:
>>That also depends on one's definition of "proper MMU".  The 286 had a 
>>segmented MMU, but lacked a paged MMU.  Paging was not added until the 
>>386.  And there are some that define "proper MMU" as "paged MMU".
>
>I don't know the MMU details for the 286, but my undestanding (formed
>at the time) is that it was "proper" in that it could actually protect
>running programs from each other.

It could, but if your programs used more than one segment for code
or data, the switching was extremely slow and painful.  Since the
segments were of variable size, that meant operating systems had
to do free space compaction that paging systems don't need.

>  PC-IX and I presume Xenix worked
>on the 8088/8086 by having the C compiler emit code which stayed
>in a segment -- so programs wouldn't interfere with each other

There was 286 Xenix that used multiple segments in protected mode.
I never used it.

>What the 286 couldn't do was virtual memory, which the 386 could.

Sure it could.  The system could mark segments as nonresident and
take a fault and swap them in as needed.  I wouldn't call that
very good virtual memory, but it's definitely virtual memory.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

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

#72346

On 26/08/2025 21:25, John Levine wrote:
> There was 286 Xenix that used multiple segments in protected mode.
> I never used it.

I saw Venix run on a 286.


-- 
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

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

#72358

In article <108l56v$77t$2@gal.iecc.com>, John Levine  <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>According to Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan>:
>>>That also depends on one's definition of "proper MMU".  The 286 had a 
>>>segmented MMU, but lacked a paged MMU.  Paging was not added until the 
>>>386.  And there are some that define "proper MMU" as "paged MMU".
>>
>>I don't know the MMU details for the 286, but my undestanding (formed
>>at the time) is that it was "proper" in that it could actually protect
>>running programs from each other.
>
>It could, but if your programs used more than one segment for code
>or data, the switching was extremely slow and painful.  Since the
>segments were of variable size, that meant operating systems had
>to do free space compaction that paging systems don't need.
>
>>  PC-IX and I presume Xenix worked
>>on the 8088/8086 by having the C compiler emit code which stayed
>>in a segment -- so programs wouldn't interfere with each other
>
>There was 286 Xenix that used multiple segments in protected mode.
>I never used it.
>
>>What the 286 couldn't do was virtual memory, which the 386 could.
>
>Sure it could.  The system could mark segments as nonresident and
>take a fault and swap them in as needed.  I wouldn't call that
>very good virtual memory, but it's definitely virtual memory.
>

Thanks!

It ain't the things you don't know, but the things you know that ain't so...
-- 
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

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

#72436

In alt.folklore.computers John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:04:07 +0200
> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
> 
>> > Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11
>> > was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while
>> > the IBM PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit
>> > architecture on an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance
>> > characteristics of the first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to
>> > do a head-to-head shootout. I don't know if it's recorded whether
>> > the Bell Labs -11 was core or semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns
>> > cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz would have a cycle time of around
>> > 209 ns, but with the aforementioned 8-bit bus. As a naive
>> > approximation, that might put them anywhere from comparable to
>> > around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then the 8088's
>> > instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. Definitely
>> > makes one curious...  
>> 
>> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more 
>> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the 
>> PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing.
>> (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a
>> proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or
>> PC/XT.)
> 
> The 286 had a proper MMU, but not (AFAIUI) a terribly performant one.
> I've never heard of an add-on MMU for the 8086, but I admit I've never
> looked. In any case, I realize now that my napkin math was way off; the
> 8086/88 can only perform a memory access every fourth cycle, so the
> PC's approximate "cycle time" by comparison would be more like ~836 ns,
> barely faster than core even *before* you factor in the 8-bit bottle-
> neck or DRAM refresh. Ye gods, what a *dog.*

Actually PC cycle time is similar to 360/30 microcode cycle time.
Memory bandwidth is simiar too.  AFAICS for most applications
code running on PC would be faster than code running on 360/30.
If you think about I/O "builtin" 360/30 I/O was done by microcode
so probably significantly faster than programmed I/O on PC.
But PC had hardware DMA channels and that should be at least
as fast as 360/30.   Of course, when PC appeared nobody would
like to do serious data processing on 360/30 (360/30 was cancelled
from IBM offering few years earlier).


-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch

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

#72443

On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:09:07 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:

> If you think about I/O "builtin" 360/30 I/O was done by microcode so
> probably significantly faster than programmed I/O on PC.

Fast I/O throughput was just about the main point of a mainframe computer.

> But PC had hardware DMA channels and that should be at least as fast as
> 360/30.

Could MS-DOS (or CP/M) really make use of DMA?? Particularly since it 
couldn’t even do multitasking or interrupt-driven I/O, so the OS driver 
would just sit there spinning its wheels until the I/O completed anyway.

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

#72485

In alt.folklore.computers Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:09:07 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> 
>> If you think about I/O "builtin" 360/30 I/O was done by microcode so
>> probably significantly faster than programmed I/O on PC.
> 
> Fast I/O throughput was just about the main point of a mainframe computer.
> 
>> But PC had hardware DMA channels and that should be at least as fast as
>> 360/30.
> 
> Could MS-DOS (or CP/M) really make use of DMA?? Particularly since it 
> couldn’t even do multitasking or interrupt-driven I/O, so the OS driver 
> would just sit there spinning its wheels until the I/O completed anyway.

AFAIK IBM PC BIOS used DMA for hard drives and floppies.  Later
AT BIOS switched to PIO because on AT it gave higher troughput.
Yes, DOS would wait for driver to finish it work, so only gain
from DMA was higher I/O bandwidth.

However, this was in context of porting Unix to PC: IIUC such ports
were independent of DOS and used BIOS mostly for booting.  In
particular used their own drivers for floppies and hard discs.

If you wanted to do mainframe work on PC (which probably IBM did
not want you to do) you would not use MS-DOS.  Rather, you would
port IBM DOS from 360 to PC hardware.  Or write your own OS.

-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch

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

#72502

On 2025-08-28 01:00, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:09:07 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> 
>> If you think about I/O "builtin" 360/30 I/O was done by microcode so
>> probably significantly faster than programmed I/O on PC.
> 
> Fast I/O throughput was just about the main point of a mainframe computer.
> 
>> But PC had hardware DMA channels and that should be at least as fast as
>> 360/30.
> 
> Could MS-DOS (or CP/M) really make use of DMA?? Particularly since it
> couldn’t even do multitasking or interrupt-driven I/O, so the OS driver
> would just sit there spinning its wheels until the I/O completed anyway.

Yes, MsDOS could.

I know for certain because I used (in the 90's) an analog data 
acquisition card which came with routines for direct poll, interrupt 
driven, or dma driven. I still have the documentation.

However, it worked, IIRC, at the same frequency than the original IBM 
PC. I have forgotten the exact explanation, but perhaps I have it 
written somewhere. Probably related to the clock frequency of the bus on 
the ISA cards.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#72504

On 28/08/2025 12:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>> Could MS-DOS (or CP/M) really make use of DMA?? Particularly since it
>> couldn’t even do multitasking or interrupt-driven I/O, so the OS driver
>> would just sit there spinning its wheels until the I/O completed anyway.
> 
> Yes, MsDOS could.
> 
> I know for certain because I used (in the 90's) an analog data 
> acquisition card which came with routines for direct poll, interrupt 
> driven, or dma driven. I still have the documentation.
> 
> However, it worked, IIRC, at the same frequency than the original IBM 
> PC. I have forgotten the exact explanation, but perhaps I have it 
> written somewhere. Probably related to the clock frequency of the bus on 
> the ISA cards.

Floppy disk drive used DMA

-- 
Any fool can believe in principles -  and most of them do!

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

#73189

In alt.folklore.computers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 28/08/2025 12:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >>
> >> Could MS-DOS (or CP/M) really make use of DMA?? Particularly since it
> >> couldn’t even do multitasking or interrupt-driven I/O, so the OS driver
> >> would just sit there spinning its wheels until the I/O completed anyway.
> > 
> > Yes, MsDOS could.
> > 
> > I know for certain because I used (in the 90's) an analog data 
> > acquisition card which came with routines for direct poll, interrupt 
> > driven, or dma driven. I still have the documentation.
> > 
> > However, it worked, IIRC, at the same frequency than the original IBM 
> > PC. I have forgotten the exact explanation, but perhaps I have it 
> > written somewhere. Probably related to the clock frequency of the bus on 
> > the ISA cards.
> 
> Floppy disk drive used DMA

That was more for latency purposes.  The floppy controller had a very small
FIFO, so when data arrived from the disc you had to do *something* with it
in short order otherwise the byte coming next would have to be dropped. 
DMA was the solution - you didn't need the CPU to do anything, you could
just stash it in RAM via DMA.

That was important when you had a ~500Kbps data stream from the FDC and only
a 4.77MHz CPU.  But there was only so much memory bandwidth to go around and
at that point the floppy was taking a big chunk, so not a lot of progress
would be made on the CPU while DMA was busy hammering the memory.

Since the IBM PC had a DMA controller on the motherboard for that reason
(and also DRAM refresh), it was then reasonably easy to make ISA cards that
streamed data via DMA - you could just put your data on the data bus and
generate basic DMARQ / DMACK cycles to store it to RAM, without having to
worry about generating addresses since the 8237 did that for you.

Theo

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

Page 1 of 8  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web