Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #13769 > unrolled thread
| Started by | not.socialnetwork@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-02-28 12:13 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-04-14 06:46 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 49 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Keeping 'order' without RTC. not.socialnetwork@gmail.com - 2015-02-28 12:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-02-28 06:52 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-02-28 13:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-02-28 07:59 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-28 18:28 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-02-28 19:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-28 19:22 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 15:48 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-02-28 21:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-02-28 22:40 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-02-28 18:01 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 01:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-01 07:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. cl@isbd.net - 2015-03-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-01 10:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 17:18 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 18:33 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-02 09:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-02 09:19 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-02 17:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-02 09:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-02 16:27 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jim Diamond <Jim.Diamond@deletethis.AcadiaU.ca> - 2015-03-05 08:36 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. cl@isbd.net - 2015-03-01 11:25 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-01 11:40 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-01 16:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-01 17:11 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 18:47 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-01 19:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-03-03 22:27 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 00:50 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 01:51 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-03-04 17:05 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 17:59 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-06 00:00 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-06 06:55 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 07:31 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 10:00 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 11:01 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 22:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 22:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-05 01:07 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-05 10:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-05 10:51 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:53 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-05 15:35 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 17:24 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:49 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-05 23:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 22:34 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-04 08:23 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-04 11:19 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-04 17:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:10 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2015-03-04 10:43 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-04 09:28 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:11 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-04 08:22 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-28 13:34 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 09:14 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-02-28 08:52 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-28 15:22 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 15:46 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-28 21:10 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 19:48 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 09:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-03-01 07:52 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-01 16:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> - 2015-03-01 20:28 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. not.socialnetwork@gmail.com - 2015-03-01 11:00 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-01 11:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-03 07:37 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-03 17:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:43 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 10:44 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-01 19:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 20:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 13:12 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 13:07 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 21:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 14:49 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-28 18:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-02-28 19:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-03-01 14:22 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 21:54 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-02 16:12 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-03-02 19:57 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-03-03 10:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-03 19:38 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-04 10:43 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 11:23 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 11:30 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 16:31 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 16:38 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:39 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 16:53 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:03 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-03-04 08:52 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-03-05 20:23 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-03-05 20:16 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-03-05 22:38 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-06 17:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2015-03-06 18:45 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-03-06 14:56 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-06 06:30 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-03-06 08:24 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-06 17:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-03-06 10:02 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-06 09:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-07 00:34 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-06 06:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-06 11:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-03-06 14:56 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-07 12:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-08 02:38 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-03-07 21:15 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-03-07 21:44 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-08 16:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-08 09:42 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-03 23:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 08:52 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-05 09:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-05 09:47 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-06 01:31 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 04:53 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-11 05:24 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-03-11 07:58 -0700
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-11 19:01 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-03-11 13:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 17:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-12 13:50 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-04-13 13:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-13 15:10 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2015-04-14 00:30 +1000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-13 17:47 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2015-04-15 22:37 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-04-17 02:32 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-04-25 23:09 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-04-27 13:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-13 16:22 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-04-13 21:14 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-13 21:55 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-14 09:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-14 10:12 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-04-14 10:29 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-14 12:05 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-04-14 22:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-16 14:11 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-16 20:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-04-14 05:25 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-16 14:13 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-04-16 20:18 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-04 03:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-04 04:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-05-04 07:54 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-04 18:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2015-05-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Kees Theunissen <theuniss@rijnh.nl> - 2015-05-04 22:31 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-04 22:35 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-04 19:13 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-05 02:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Baeuerle <michael.baeuerle@stz-e.de> - 2015-05-05 08:04 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-05 09:22 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-05 08:26 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-05 18:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 23:16 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-11 17:52 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 07:09 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 06:47 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 08:27 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 15:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 17:08 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 17:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-12 12:41 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 19:03 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 18:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 19:59 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 20:05 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 22:58 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-13 01:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-13 08:14 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 09:24 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-12 11:50 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 18:52 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 17:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 18:36 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 20:00 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 20:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 06:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 06:09 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 06:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 17:45 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 21:06 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-04-14 23:18 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-04-14 20:58 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-04-15 06:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2015-04-16 02:58 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-16 05:21 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-04-16 11:42 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-04-16 12:10 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-16 13:42 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-04-16 15:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 23:09 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-16 14:17 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 09:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-04-16 06:13 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-16 12:40 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-04-16 16:32 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-04-17 01:54 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-17 06:34 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dr J R Stockton <reply1500@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-04-18 23:13 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-04-13 20:39 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-04-14 06:46 +0000
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 16:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md7d85$5g8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13892 |
> > I don't believe I ever saw a PC floppy with less than 360k > > > They were single-sided, and if you cut out a "write notch" on the > opposite side, you /could/ use them on the other side as well, or so I > was told. This did indeed work. -- David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 17:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md7dt3$lv9$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #13892 |
On 04/03/15 16:39, Aragorn wrote: > On Wednesday 04 March 2015 17:31, The Natural Philosopher conveyed the > following to comp.os.linux.misc... > >> On 04/03/15 16:13, William Unruh wrote: >> >>> On 2015-03-04, Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The original IBM-PC floppy was only about 160 kb while we 'old >>>> hands' were used to 1200 kb floppies. I believe the very first >>>> IBM-PCs didn't even have floppy drives at all. >> >> I don't believe I ever saw a PC floppy with less than 360k > > They were single-sided, and if you cut out a "write notch" on the > opposite side, you /could/ use them on the other side as well, or so I > was told. > >> 1200kb was never a 5 1/4" format option > > Yes it was. It was introduced for the AT. My first computer was a > Brother 386 with an internal 3.5" 1.44 MiB drive and an external 5.25" > 1.2 MiB drive. > No, that wasnt 1200 -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 08:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <md7d6h$598$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13890 |
On 03/04/2015 08:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 04/03/15 16:13, William Unruh wrote: >> On 2015-03-04, Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>> I think the first PC as we know it was 1981 (IBM) so it was a very >>>> very very >>>> long time ago in the eyes of a PC. >>>> >>> The IBM-PC was a latecomer to the scene. Most of us who had 'Personal >>> Computers' were quite disparaging of its early specifications.Originally >>> it was very restricted in terms of memory, and disk capacity. >> >> Disk? You were a latecomer to the PC. The original had a cartridge tape >> system. >> > > No. Actually the originals were available from the get go with disk, > *cassette* tape, or nothing. > > > >>> >>> The original IBM-PC floppy was only about 160 kb while we 'old hands' >>> were used to 1200 kb floppies. I believe the very first IBM-PCs didn't >>> even have floppy drives at all. >>> > > I don't believe I ever saw a PC floppy with less than 360k How hard were you looking? > > 1200kb was never a 5 1/4" format option He never mentioned 5.25" and was probably used to 8 inch floppy disks. These were really floppy since the material used were about the same as in the 5.25". I just saw a few examples of these in the NGO I volunteered at for other clerical work like correcting print out of snail mail address lists. The big floppies had a wide use in the old days and came from the firm that had done data entry for the NGO but it was 5.25" that I used and I saw the smaller PC disks and using Big Blue Reader on my Commodore 64, converted files to ascii for further manipulation in the that 64 kilobytes of ram using the excellent Paper Clip word processor from Batteries Included in Canada. The universal format for a while was the 180 Kilobyte IBM floppy. This was easily handled by the VIC 1541 floppy disk drive from Commodore. Commodore used a completely different format but due to its complex interface actually another 6502 level computer as I recall it could be programmed via tools such as BBR to read other disk formats. The alternative to the PC (IBM or Clone) was a CP/M 2.2 with 64 KB and 4 higher capacity double-sided disk drives. > >>> Jack bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 20:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u10ifa95n3ahi897b7in3t9ihajovuqmcf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #13893 |
On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:52:12 -0800, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> declaimed the following:
> The universal format for a while was the 180 Kilobyte IBM floppy. This
>was easily handled by the VIC 1541 floppy disk drive
>from Commodore. Commodore used a completely different format but
>due to its complex interface actually another 6502 level computer
>as I recall it could be programmed via tools such as BBR to read
>other disk formats.
The Amiga was sneaky that way too -- using 3.5"... It didn't do sector
I/O, choosing instead to do full track read/write operations. As a result,
the native format fit 880K on what was 720K on an IBM format -- by reducing
the inter-sector filler bytes, and also ignoring the start of track marker
hole. It easily could handle IBM format via a device driver. I think there
was even a third party driver for Apple format (which used variable rate
drives to maintain bit density on the outer tracks). Since I was only
concerned with reading data disks for IBM format, I never bothered with
buying the latter driver.
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md7fea02k0l@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #13890 |
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] On 2015-03-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 04/03/15 16:13, William Unruh wrote: > >> On 2015-03-04, Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> The original IBM-PC floppy was only about 160 kb while we 'old hands' >>> were used to 1200 kb floppies. I believe the very first IBM-PCs didn't >>> even have floppy drives at all. > > I don't believe I ever saw a PC floppy with less than 360k > > 1200kb was never a 5 1/4" format option Not until the AT came along, anyway. Then the hundreds of 5 1/4-inch format standards collapsed into two, which were interchangeable only if you were _very_ careful. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 20:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <devhfa5q9bkavtigppv0p27osai5hukkps@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #13890 |
On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:31:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> declaimed the following:
>I don't believe I ever saw a PC floppy with less than 360k
>
That was a double-density single-sided drive. Single-density was 180K
(I think I need to change the font in my news client -- I'd swear there was
an extraneous space between the 1 and 8)
The drives on my TRS-80 Model III/4 (upgraded) had enough leeway that I
used to format disks at 42 tracks, instead of the default 40.
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 22:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1503052235500.31278@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #13948 |
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:31:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher > <tnp@invalid.invalid> declaimed the following: > > >> I don't believe I ever saw a PC floppy with less than 360k >> > That was a double-density single-sided drive. Single-density was 180K > (I think I need to change the font in my news client -- I'd swear there was > an extraneous space between the 1 and 8) > > The drives on my TRS-80 Model III/4 (upgraded) had enough leeway that I > used to format disks at 42 tracks, instead of the default 40. But when Radio Shack first issued a floppy drive, it had 35 tracks. I seem to recal that even the Radio Shack Color Computer, coming out in 1981, still used 35 track drives. That's one reason I got a third party controller and floppy drive in 1984 for my CoCo, the drive was 40 track and double sided, and the ROM in the controller handled both sides and 40 tracks. The Apple II started with a single sided drive, and relatively low density (and probably 35 tracks) and never improved. At least not till 3.5" drives came along. So the spread of capacity was more complicated/ Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-06 17:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdcp5c020li@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #13953 |
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] On 2015-03-06, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > The Apple II started with a single sided drive, and relatively low density > (and probably 35 tracks) and never improved. At least not till 3.5" > drives came along. > > So the spread of capacity was more complicated/ Complicated doesn't begin to describe it. Our computer club had an S-100 floppy controller called the Disk Maker, which could handle over 400 different 5 1/4" formats. I don't think it could do hard-sectored disks, though. Weren't the Apple II's disks hard-sectored? -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-06 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdcskv$srg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13967 |
In article <mdcp5c020li@news3.newsguy.com>, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] > >On 2015-03-06, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > >> The Apple II started with a single sided drive, and relatively low density >> (and probably 35 tracks) and never improved. At least not till 3.5" >> drives came along. >> >> So the spread of capacity was more complicated/ > >Complicated doesn't begin to describe it. Our computer club had an >S-100 floppy controller called the Disk Maker, which could handle >over 400 different 5 1/4" formats. I don't think it could do >hard-sectored disks, though. Weren't the Apple II's disks hard-sectored? No. Soft. Didn't even use the index hole to find sector zero. As for the density - it had a higher density than other computers at the time that used the same physical disk drives due to a more efficient encoding of data on the disk by Woz. (e.g. 16 sectors per track rather than 10 or so that other systems were using) There were hacks for 40 track drives though, but obviously not portable floppys if you had one. Gordon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-06 14:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1968552295447367983.986852mjmahon-aol.com@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #13967 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] > > On 2015-03-06, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > >> The Apple II started with a single sided drive, and relatively low density >> (and probably 35 tracks) and never improved. At least not till 3.5" >> drives came along. >> >> So the spread of capacity was more complicated/ > > Complicated doesn't begin to describe it. Our computer club had an > S-100 floppy controller called the Disk Maker, which could handle > over 400 different 5 1/4" formats. I don't think it could do > hard-sectored disks, though. Weren't the Apple II's disks hard-sectored? No, they didn't even use the start-of-track hole. Apple diskettes, both 5.25" and 3.5", were completely soft formatted. -- -michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-06 06:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nKs231.In0@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #13890 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
> 1200kb was never a 5 1/4" format option
>
Yes it was. In fact it was a standard IBM-PC (MSDOS) format.
"F9 1.2 MB 5.25-inch, 2-sided, 15-sector"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/75131
IBM used to do a fiddle with the 5.25" disk controller and
managed to put even more on it - 1.6 MB if I remember correctly.
Jack
--
"I'm a home-loving girl. And that's where I wish I was."
"At home ..."
"Loving."
- Laugh-In, 1968
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-06 08:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.xu2hnpcomsr2db@dell3100> |
| In reply to | #13955 |
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 06:30:37 -0000, Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: >> >> 1200kb was never a 5 1/4" format option >> > Yes it was. In fact it was a standard IBM-PC (MSDOS) format. > > "F9 1.2 MB 5.25-inch, 2-sided, 15-sector" > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/75131 > > IBM used to do a fiddle with the 5.25" disk controller and > managed to put even more on it - 1.6 MB if I remember correctly. > > Jack Microsoft supplied Windows ( 95?) install disks at some stage were formatted to a higher capacity; it could well be that one. aha this website has disk images of that size: http://www.winimage.com/wimushlp/wini1a1y.htm Note that these are 3.5" diskettes, not the 5.25" floppies. I've not seen those ones. I knew Apple got 800k on their first 3.5", whereas we only got 720k! -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-06 17:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdcp5d120li@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #13960 |
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] On 2015-03-06, Kerr Mudd-John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote: > I knew Apple got 800k on their first 3.5", whereas we only got 720k! We Amigaphiles got 880K. Neener, neener, neener... -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-06 10:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mdcq2i$ipt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13968 |
On 03/06/2015 09:46 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] > > On 2015-03-06, Kerr Mudd-John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote: > >> I knew Apple got 800k on their first 3.5", whereas we only got 720k! Actually to the best of my recollection the first Apple 3.5 inch floppies only held 400 kilobytes single-sided, > > We Amigaphiles got 880K. Neener, neener, neener... > Yes but all those models are no longer in production. So you are crowing on a computer graveyard. My removable disks are measured in megabytes and gigabytes these days. My hard disks are still in that category but are sizable fractions of Terabytes. So I have 0.75 Terabytes inside this note book and twice that much storage externally. Yeehaah! bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-06 09:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmfislt.t9e.nomail@xs8.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #13955 |
Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: >> >> 1200kb was never a 5 1/4" format option >> > Yes it was. In fact it was a standard IBM-PC (MSDOS) format. > > "F9 1.2 MB 5.25-inch, 2-sided, 15-sector" > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/75131 > > IBM used to do a fiddle with the 5.25" disk controller and > managed to put even more on it - 1.6 MB if I remember correctly. Not IBM of course. IBM always adhered to standards, partly created by themselves. But there were add-on programs that used different parameters like an extra sector on a track or extra tracks beyond the normal end of the drive. When the 5.25" floppy was created, it only had half the datarate of the 8" floppy, resulting in half of the capacity. (not exactly, as 8" floppies revolved at 360 RPM and 5.25" at 300 RPM) Later this difference was removed, and the result was called HD (high density), doubling the capacity. The 5.25" 1.2MB floppy format was the same as an 8" format, and so it used 77 tracks (customary on 8") rather than 80 tracks (the first 5.25" drives used 35 tracks, soon extended to 40 tracks and later the track width was halved resulting in 80 tracks). Hobbyists also found that some (but not all) drives could write 81 or 82 tracks, resulting in some extra capacity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 00:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nKtG94.JEp@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #13961 |
Rob <nomail@example.com> writes:
> Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > IBM used to do a fiddle with the 5.25" disk controller and
> > managed to put even more on it - 1.6 MB if I remember correctly.
>
> Not IBM of course. IBM always adhered to standards, partly created
> by themselves.
>
This was IBM's last gasp on 5.25" floppies. The later OS/2 install
disks had something called Extended Density, some kind of hybrid format
by the sound of its description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Extended_Density_Format
Because it was a fiddle with the floppy controller itself, you can't
install OS/2 in a VirtualBox VM because OS/2 detects that there is
no real floppy controller hardware attached.
Jack
--
"I'm a home-loving girl. And that's where I wish I was."
"At home ..."
"Loving."
- Laugh-In, 1968
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-06 06:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nKs1o2.BxF@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #13889 |
William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes:
>
> Disk? You were a latecomer to the PC. The original had a cartridge tape
> system.
>
Yes. 1985. I had a much better CP/M system in terms of usability
than the original 1981 PC up until then. My IBM PC-XT had my first
hard drive - a whole 10 MB.
My very first Personal Computer at the end of 1978 had a disk drive.
90 kb single-sided, single-density. I thought I was at the cutting edge.
Jack
--
"I'm a home-loving girl. And that's where I wish I was."
"At home ..."
"Loving."
- Laugh-In, 1968
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-06 11:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdc2ca$2v0$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #13954 |
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 06:21:38 +0000, Jack Strangio wrote: > William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: >> >> Disk? You were a latecomer to the PC. The original had a cartridge tape >> system. >> > Yes. 1985. I had a much better CP/M system in terms of usability than > the original 1981 PC up until then. My IBM PC-XT had my first hard drive > - a whole 10 MB. > I still have one of those in my loft, complete with a MDA & memory expasion to 640K :-) > My very first Personal Computer at the end of 1978 had a disk drive. > 90 kb single-sided, single-density. I thought I was at the cutting edge. > > Jack -- Windows - From the people who brought you EDLIN!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-06 14:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1367529749447367530.483338mjmahon-aol.com@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #13954 |
Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote: > William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: >> >> Disk? You were a latecomer to the PC. The original had a cartridge tape >> system. >> > Yes. 1985. I had a much better CP/M system in terms of usability > than the original 1981 PC up until then. My IBM PC-XT had my first > hard drive - a whole 10 MB. > > My very first Personal Computer at the end of 1978 had a disk drive. > 90 kb single-sided, single-density. I thought I was at the cutting edge. FWIW, this was the same single-density, single-sided diskette standard that Woz used with Group Coded Recording to get (eventually) 143K bytes on a side (by using a clever state machine to do clock recovery)--at the same bit density. -- -michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 12:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmflqsm.7o1.nomail@xs8.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #13973 |
Michael J Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote: > Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote: >> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: >>> >>> Disk? You were a latecomer to the PC. The original had a cartridge tape >>> system. >>> >> Yes. 1985. I had a much better CP/M system in terms of usability >> than the original 1981 PC up until then. My IBM PC-XT had my first >> hard drive - a whole 10 MB. >> >> My very first Personal Computer at the end of 1978 had a disk drive. >> 90 kb single-sided, single-density. I thought I was at the cutting edge. > > FWIW, this was the same single-density, single-sided diskette standard that > Woz used with Group Coded Recording to get (eventually) 143K bytes on a > side (by using a clever state machine to do clock recovery)--at the same > bit density. That is a different format. The difference between single and double density is a similar difference. The drive records pulse edges, and the next level is the encoding of ones and zeroes to pulse edges. In single density the method is to always record an edge, then record another edge for a 1 and no edge for a zero. The first edge is used only for clocking and is a waste of space. It is "required" because if it is not used, a recording of many consequtive zeroes would result in no edges at all and the controller would not be able to sync and thus count the number of zeroes that were recorded. It is easy to improve on that simple method used for single density, and both the Apple method and the later "double density" method are such improvements. But it is still the same diskette and drive. (although some of the early drives were not reading accurately enough to allow more advanced encodings without data loss) Wozniak's main achievement was to make a disk controller that could be sold for the same amount as the competitor's, but cost him a lot less to manufacture. That made his company money. Other manufacturers used IBM standard formatting which required an expensive LSI chip like the Western Digital WD1771 or WD1791, with still more support chips in addition to that (a data separator, the circuit that recovered the clock from the series of edges described above), while Apple's disk controller only had a few cheap TTL chips and a mask ROM. In the shop, a disk subsystem for an Apple II cost about as much as one for a TRS-80, but Apple made a lot more money on it. Of course the price the customers paid was that it was not compatible with anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web