Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #32855 > unrolled thread
| Started by | SixOverFive <hae274b.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-08-26 00:34 -0400 |
| Last post | 2021-09-03 02:37 -0400 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 114 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 00:34 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-08-26 05:05 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 20:57 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:12 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 02:43 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-31 09:28 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-01 00:13 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-01 08:52 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 20:29 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 08:49 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 04:21 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2021-09-09 21:56 +0200
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-26 10:03 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 20:36 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:08 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 01:32 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-26 12:26 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-08-26 19:49 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 21:06 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:58 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-27 13:22 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-27 11:26 -0700
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-28 01:22 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-28 09:53 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 02:08 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-28 12:11 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 01:08 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-29 04:01 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 23:32 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 00:51 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-30 00:06 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 14:03 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 01:25 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 04:21 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-04 01:37 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-28 09:40 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-28 12:20 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Allodoxaphobia <trepidation@example.net> - 2021-08-29 00:55 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 01:58 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-31 06:16 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 23:47 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-01 07:52 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2021-09-02 01:49 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> - 2021-09-02 02:39 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-02 01:29 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-02 01:10 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-02 14:51 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-09-02 13:25 -0700
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-02 21:24 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-03 03:38 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-03 09:14 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-04 01:01 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-03 12:13 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-04 01:16 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-03 03:19 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-03 14:00 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-03 17:44 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-03 14:11 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-03 19:53 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-03 13:59 -0700
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-03 20:18 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 02:14 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 09:47 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2021-09-05 10:00 -0500
Re: real programmers, was HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-09-05 22:16 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2021-09-05 12:05 -0400
Re: fine old languages, HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-09-05 22:20 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 23:00 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 20:12 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-09-07 16:27 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-07 18:30 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 00:17 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 08:50 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2021-09-06 11:16 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-09-06 15:04 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2021-09-09 02:04 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 01:40 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 09:38 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-05 10:49 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 11:22 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-05 11:31 +0100
OT : Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-05 11:38 +0100
Re: OT : Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 12:15 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 20:12 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-07 22:05 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-09-05 10:13 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-05 09:50 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 20:18 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-05 22:38 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-06 08:53 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-05 12:22 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2021-09-03 19:34 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-03 19:57 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-09-03 08:27 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 01:03 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-09-05 15:25 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 14:03 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-09-05 19:27 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 20:14 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-06 00:53 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 08:58 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-09-06 12:36 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-28 00:44 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-26 17:51 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-28 01:48 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-28 10:16 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 00:21 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2021-08-26 19:53 +0200
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 20:33 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:01 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 04:40 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-02 00:15 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 06:02 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-03 02:37 -0400
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-06 08:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sh4hn6$qj8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33150 |
On 06/09/2021 05:53, SixOverFive wrote: > The Apollo computers used "rope memory" - HAND assembled. > This was basically ferrite-core memory, but assembled > on loose wires so you could pack it into a small space. > There WERE better solutions in the late 60s ... so I > suspect a pork-barrel project ... indeed I seem to > remember they were made in Texas - LBJs state Core store is very radiation proof. And very shock and vibration proof -- "It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-06 12:36 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <sh4nf2$2id$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33150 |
On 6.9.2021 07:53 AM, SixOverFive wrote: > > The Apollo computers used "rope memory" - HAND assembled. > This was basically ferrite-core memory, but assembled > on loose wires so you could pack it into a small space. > There WERE better solutions in the late 60s ... so I > suspect a pork-barrel project ... indeed I seem to > remember they were made in Texas - LBJs state :-) > The rope memory was ROM. It used soft ferrite (transformer) cores. A ferrite storage memory used square-loop (permanen magnet) cores. There was as many cores as the memory bit width, each having a secondary winding and a sense amplifier. The word lines were threaded through a core for an one bit and around the core for a zero bit. For reading, a word line was pulsed and the responses from the bit lines stored to the data register. To save drivers, the word lines were matrixed. -- -TV
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-28 00:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9sudnT7f5tesIrT8nZ2dnUU7-VHNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32913 |
On 08/26/2021 09:58 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 27/08/2021 02:06, SixOverFive wrote: >> On 08/26/2021 12:49 PM, Tauno Voipio wrote: >>> On 26.8.21 19.26, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 00:34:38 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274b.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Note, CP/M was rather CRAPPY. It wasn't even usually >>>>> safe to try and append to files because the OS didn't >>>>> keep track of how many bytes were in play. >>>> >>>> MS-DOS did? I admit I have no idea, but always thought CP/M was >>>> superior >>>> to MS-DOS; even that MS-DOS was more or less a clone. And not forget >>>> CP/M >>>> was the first operating system for micros, running on many system >>>> architectures, as long as they ran a 8080, Z80 or X68. The software >>>> library is so huge that many manufacturers, even Commodore, offered >>>> CP/M >>>> cards to give their customers access to it. >>> >>> >>> CP/M had bookkeeping in 128 byte extents, not more accurate. The extent >>> size was also the sector size of a basic single-density 8 inch diskette, >>> with 77 tracks of 26 sectors each. >> >> Ah HA ! So if you wanted to append a file, you should have >> your records sized at some multiple of 128 ..... > > No, the problem was that text files used a ctrl-z to mark EOF so you had > to scan the last sector looking for it...and use that as your file size. > For code files - executables - spare bytes at the end didn't matter. and > ctrl-z was a valid opcodes or memory address, but you didn't append > executable files - you recompiled or reassembled them. > > The problem would have been binary files. But we didn't have those > really then. Much. And if we did we usually put something in the file > structure itself to say how long it was. CP/M doisk drivers were really > just a way of getting n 128 byte sectors off a disk and putting them on. Unfortunately, binary files were exactly what I had in mind ..... Yes, you CAN do ASCII database records, even use the PICK-ish ascii-delimited structure (easy to READ, much more of a bitch to edit - lots of special cases). > Files as such were a bit of a new fangled luxury :-) Aw, there'd been "files" since right after UNIVAC :-) I'd LOVE to score one of those antique "disk drives" though - well, "drum drives". Mercury delay-line serial memory ... they had such interesting solutions back in the day. Look up "rope memory" ... actually used for Apollo program spacecraft computers. You'd THINK fuse-programmable PROMS would have been MUCH cheaper/simpler, but then it WAS a govt program :-) >> >> This is useful information. >> >> The young people do not realize how CP/M was *the* >> "business system" for quite a long time. Mass quantities >> of biz/science software was written for it. > First micro word processors and (among the first) spreadsheets. > Accounting software too. > > This is why >> those old PCs came with the CP/M disk. You could re-compile >> your old source and I seem to recall there were utilities >> that could (usually) brutalize Z-80 binaries into x86 >> binaries directly that'd run on CP/M-86. IBMs middle >> name IS "Business" after all and they wanted to ensure >> a certain continuity until new apps could be written. > > Yeah. I remember those, but really a lot of the 8080 assembler source > could be mapped into 8086 small model (64k) code. That would have been a > better way, but along came PCDOS and bang went CPM MPM and CPM86 There wasn't THAT much difference between Z80 and 8088, so writing a simple "translator" would not be too difficult, at least for single-page programs. The Z80 could be tweaked to do multiple pages - in a very clunky way. That might be more difficult to translate into the 8088 world. Ultimately, it was just easier to re-compile the source using x86 compilers and improve from there. ASM programs were a bit more work. After that, Z80 was just dead. All those wonderful S-100 boxes became scrap metal. I *think* you could get m68000 (68008?) in S-100 early on. GOTTA find one of those ! I have limited experience with Z80 and CP/M. I've been having to re-learn how to use "PIP". DOS was kind of like CP/M at the beginning ... they just incorporated PIP so you didn't have to run it as a separate utility. Ah, my latest VirtualBox issue ... damned thing will NOT map a USB drive. SEES it, PRETENDS to attach it, but NO drive letter A:-Z: .... this is a problem. DOS 6.22 is supposed to understand CD-ROMS at the very least and VB is supposed to make a USB device kinda look like something DOS and CP/M can cope with. If I can't load some EXE programs and drivers I can't network. The SERIAL port works ... maybe a daisy-chain of adapters .... really IS like the bad old days .... DID get EMM386 to recognize a super whopping massive 32MB of RAM though :-) Oh, and IBM-C works a LOT easier if you just copy ALL the files into ONE directory - compiler, linker, includes, everything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-26 17:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sg8gqe$86n$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32877 |
On 26/08/2021 17:26, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 00:34:38 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274b.net> wrote: >> >> Note, CP/M was rather CRAPPY. It wasn't even usually >> safe to try and append to files because the OS didn't >> keep track of how many bytes were in play. > > MS-DOS did? I admit I have no idea, but always thought CP/M was superior > to MS-DOS; even that MS-DOS was more or less a clone. And not forget CP/M > was the first operating system for micros, running on many system > architectures, as long as they ran a 8080, Z80 or X68. The software > library is so huge that many manufacturers, even Commodore, offered CP/M > cards to give their customers access to it. > The disk formats were pretty crude, I think that's why there were ctrl-Z in text files to indicate the end. MS-DOS FAT was a little better, but this is all from very old memory...so may be misremembered -- Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are poor. Peter Thompson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-28 01:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5fOdndWJBaWoU7T8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32883 |
On 08/26/2021 12:51 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 26/08/2021 17:26, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 00:34:38 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274b.net> wrote: >>> >>> Note, CP/M was rather CRAPPY. It wasn't even usually >>> safe to try and append to files because the OS didn't >>> keep track of how many bytes were in play. >> >> MS-DOS did? I admit I have no idea, but always thought CP/M was superior >> to MS-DOS; even that MS-DOS was more or less a clone. And not forget CP/M >> was the first operating system for micros, running on many system >> architectures, as long as they ran a 8080, Z80 or X68. The software >> library is so huge that many manufacturers, even Commodore, offered CP/M >> cards to give their customers access to it. >> > The disk formats were pretty crude, I think that's why there were ctrl-Z > in text files to indicate the end. > > MS-DOS FAT was a little better, but this is all from very old > memory...so may be misremembered FAT/DOS *did* keep better track of things. Even FAT-12 was better than CP/M. Things advance, step by step. Though sometimes they advance towards a cliff ... And sometimes they advance in reverse ... the current trend to revive the old client/server computing model for easier exploitation/stealing/surveillance/control is an example. Oh, I *found* it, my copy of BYTE Vol8 #12 ... a review of Winders 1.0 ! The Commodore-128 had a better GUI in ROM at the time. My old boss BOUGHT a copy, but I can't find the floppy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-28 10:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sgcut3$t1e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32931 |
On 28/08/2021 06:48, SixOverFive wrote: > Things advance, step by step. > > Though sometimes they advance towards a cliff ... > > And sometimes they advance in reverse ... the current > trend to revive the old client/server computing model > for easier exploitation/stealing/surveillance/control > is an example. You have to see it from the other angle, as I did running companies. When you had a mainframe. with serial terminals, if one user had a problem it was with a cheap terminal or a cable If everyone had a problem, it was with the one actual computer. You got in your supplier, and they sorted it. There was only one set of programs running on it, they were clearly understood and documented, and you went on a training course to learn how to uses them. Move to the world of the Personal Computer, and offices became a total nightmare, with people loading anything and everything on their computers, including viruses and porn, and pirate copes of this that and the other, that the reliability took a dive while the cost of keeping it all running soared onto the stratosphere. And didn't start to come down until centrally managed cloud based apps appeared that merely demanded the users ran IE6 or something. If you are working in a commercial environment it is so much easier and cheaper to maintain one central copy of code that everyone uses. One set of properly backed up data and so on. All the personal computer did was allow far more processing power into the hands of users. For something like graphics and media creation and edition, or running CAD CAM software this was indispensable, and of course for home us it meant games, but really it clobbered support completely. Most people are far far happier on their cloudy StupidPhones™ and TotalPills™ (tablets) plugged into cloud apps than they are reinstalling SUSE linux on a hard drive. You and I are not, but we are the exception, not the rule. Decent networking speeds have removed the need for local processing power to a very large extent. It is far more cost effective to go back to the 'client server timesharing charge for access to my app' model where data and support is centralised, than to run distributed code. I don't see it as a retrograde step at all. It is simply that the balance between processor power and networks speeds has drastically changed. And the fact that this re centralisation of data, which should make it more secure from accidental loss, and lower maintenance costs, also makes it more vulnerable to malicious abuse, is just the way that particular cookie crumbles. Instead of trusting your own sysadmin, you have to trust AmazonAWS sysadmins instead. From the perspective of extremely IT literate people, we see the potential hazards, but unless you have been involved in setting up and running commercial software systems, you wont easily see the flip side of the coin. - “Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,” – Ludwig von Mises
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 00:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kemdnWUObtPRlrb8nZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32936 |
On 08/28/2021 05:16 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 28/08/2021 06:48, SixOverFive wrote: >> Things advance, step by step. >> >> Though sometimes they advance towards a cliff ... >> >> And sometimes they advance in reverse ... the current >> trend to revive the old client/server computing model >> for easier exploitation/stealing/surveillance/control >> is an example. > > You have to see it from the other angle, as I did running companies. > > When you had a mainframe. with serial terminals, if one user had a > problem it was with a cheap terminal or a cable > > If everyone had a problem, it was with the one actual computer. You got > in your supplier, and they sorted it. There was only one set of programs > running on it, they were clearly understood and documented, and you went > on a training course to learn how to uses them. > > Move to the world of the Personal Computer, and offices became a total > nightmare, with people loading anything and everything on their > computers, including viruses and porn, and pirate copes of this that and > the other, that the reliability took a dive while the cost of keeping it > all running soared onto the stratosphere. > > And didn't start to come down until centrally managed cloud based apps > appeared that merely demanded the users ran IE6 or something. > > If you are working in a commercial environment it is so much easier and > cheaper to maintain one central copy of code that everyone uses. One set > of properly backed up data and so on. > > All the personal computer did was allow far more processing power into > the hands of users. For something like graphics and media creation and > edition, or running CAD CAM software this was indispensable, and of > course for home us it meant games, but really it clobbered support > completely. > > Most people are far far happier on their cloudy StupidPhones™ and > TotalPills™ (tablets) plugged into cloud apps than they are reinstalling > SUSE linux on a hard drive. > > You and I are not, but we are the exception, not the rule. > > Decent networking speeds have removed the need for local processing > power to a very large extent. It is far more cost effective to go back > to the 'client server timesharing charge for access to my app' model > where data and support is centralised, than to run distributed code. > > I don't see it as a retrograde step at all. It is simply that the > balance between processor power and networks speeds has drastically > changed. And the fact that this re centralisation of data, which should > make it more secure from accidental loss, and lower maintenance costs, > also makes it more vulnerable to malicious abuse, is just the way that > particular cookie crumbles. > > Instead of trusting your own sysadmin, you have to trust AmazonAWS > sysadmins instead. > > From the perspective of extremely IT literate people, we see the > potential hazards, but unless you have been involved in setting up and > running commercial software systems, you wont easily see the flip side > of the coin. Try using/developing-for ArcGIS. Everybody who does is pining horribly for the i15 12ghz dodecacore and a multi-teraflop Nvidia card. The need for local power has NOT gone away. In any case, "making it work" has become less of a problem these days. The $$$ issue is data theft/surveillance/micro- management. THIS is The Problem nowadays - and it's a BAD, EVIL, problem. So, I'm going to take the exact opposite position. Power To The People - screw the Big Boyz. In short, I see that "flip side" as a $$$/Stasi-motivated LIE. Any lie can be sold, of course. There are ALWAYS endless "good reasons" for central control/monitoring.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-26 19:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20210826195339.48deb236@nx-74205> |
| In reply to | #32855 |
On 26.08.2021 at 00:34, SixOverFive scribbled: > Drifting around today I found a few interesting antiques > on the net. One was DOS-6.22 ... and a Turbo Pascal 6 > compiler that ran on it. Also got the MS Fortran/Pascal/COBOL > and BASCOM for it. Even more interesting, remember when the > IBM-PCs first came out ? They came with TWO floppies - > IBM-DOS and CP/M-86. The originals had CP/M 1.0 while the > closely-following PC-XTs came with CP/M 1.10 ... > got BOTH to run inside VirtualBox. A word of caution, though. I have no experience with VirtualBox, but if you're going to be running that TurboPascal 6.0 inside of it, then if possible, you'll have to set up VirtualBox to mimic a CPU with a clock speed below 200 MHz. I'm not sure where the tipping point lies, but the TP6 compiler can't handle higher clocks and will either crash or start generating faulty code. -- With respect, = Aragorn =
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274b.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-26 20:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oJOdneEoXtt7r7X8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32889 |
On 08/26/2021 01:53 PM, Aragorn wrote: > On 26.08.2021 at 00:34, SixOverFive scribbled: > >> Drifting around today I found a few interesting antiques >> on the net. One was DOS-6.22 ... and a Turbo Pascal 6 >> compiler that ran on it. Also got the MS Fortran/Pascal/COBOL >> and BASCOM for it. Even more interesting, remember when the >> IBM-PCs first came out ? They came with TWO floppies - >> IBM-DOS and CP/M-86. The originals had CP/M 1.0 while the >> closely-following PC-XTs came with CP/M 1.10 ... >> got BOTH to run inside VirtualBox. > > A word of caution, though. I have no experience with VirtualBox, but > if you're going to be running that TurboPascal 6.0 inside of it, then > if possible, you'll have to set up VirtualBox to mimic a CPU with a > clock speed below 200 MHz. > > I'm not sure where the tipping point lies, but the TP6 compiler can't > handle higher clocks and will either crash or start generating faulty > code. Haven't seen that ... brought in a couple of my old Turbo programs and they all compiled and ran as expected. They included KB and disk i/o. The only thing that MIGHT be affected would be the built in time-delay ; I don't know how it determined the system clockspeed, but likely the source no longer exists or the divisors are WAY too inadequate. Haven't tried any GRAPHICS stuff though ... THAT may be the real challenge in VBox. Anyway, it's all good retro fun. Loading the IBM compilers was a bit tedious due the the way the installers liked to work - assumed you had a stack of floppies you would load one-by-one. The VBox "Devices" option lets you mount a floppy .img file so when it said "Load Disk 2" I'd have to go up there and change to the next .img file. Works though. So far I have the IBM 'C' and PASCAL v2.0 working and could compile and link some improved "Hello World" tests. Can't find the Pas2.0 MANUAL though, just the 1.0. There are a number of features in that old IBM version you didn't see carried over into Turbo, I saw "labeled break/continue" type statements (the word isn't "continue" though), where you can bust out of a multi-level loop to any higher section. "BREAK LOOP2" and such stuff. My old boss bought IBM PASCAL, big money back then, and wrote exactly ONE "Hello World" with it (with massive commenting) and put it away. TP came out a year or two later, which I then used for almost all programs. IBM PASCAL is a TWO-pass compiler (and there's a third pass I'm not sure for WHAT included but apparently not usually necessary). I did stick with massively-commented code though, that way I can figure out how even 30 year old programs worked and why. Anyway, 'C' works - gotta build some batch files to make it easier though - and PASCAL. The LogiTech M2 compiler seems to go. I have not yet installed the DR-PL/I or IBM COBOL compilers. It's all happy running on a 250mb fake C: drive and sees 640kb of RAM (special drivers are needed to get to any RAM above that). PRINTING seems pretty much out of the question though ... I am flat out of serial printers and teletype machines and I DO remember the evils of DOS printer drivers :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-27 02:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sg9h1r012bn@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #32855 |
On 2021-08-26, SixOverFive <hae274b.net> wrote: > Drifting around today I found a few interesting antiques > on the net. One was DOS-6.22 ... and a Turbo Pascal 6 > compiler that ran on it. Also got the MS Fortran/Pascal/COBOL > and BASCOM for it. Even more interesting, remember when the > IBM-PCs first came out ? They came with TWO floppies - > IBM-DOS and CP/M-86. The originals had CP/M 1.0 while the > closely-following PC-XTs came with CP/M 1.10 ... > got BOTH to run inside VirtualBox. Even found an ancient > Aztec 'C' compiler that'll make CP/M executables AND > the (rather extensive) manual. Hmm, I have an unopened copy of CP/M-86 version 2. I'll get it uploaded to Bitsavers someday. > Note, CP/M was rather CRAPPY. It wasn't even usually > safe to try and append to files because the OS didn't > keep track of how many bytes were in play. CP/M stored file sizes in 128-byte sectors. That's why that control-Z byte was introduced: so you could tell when you've hit the exact end of a text file. Most CP/M software was smart enough to overwrite the 0x1A character when appending data. MS-DOS stores the size of a file as an exact number of bytes. Unfortunately, it retained the control-Z character, even though it was now unnecessary. This has caused all sorts of pain; for instance, if a byte in a text file gets corrupted to 0x1A, the remainder of the file is lost. I never had trouble appending to a CP/M file, but I did encounter problems with MS-DOS version 3, which contained a bug: when COMMAND.COM appended data to a text file (e.g. "dir >>file.txt"), and the existing file ended with a hex 1A, the hex 1A wasn't overwritten. This meant that all appended text, although physically present in the file, would be inaccessible to any program reading it. Although this bug was fixed in the next release, it was part of my early introduction to Microsoft's quality standards - "sort of works, most of the time" - which formed the philosophy of the most famous producer of crappy software in history. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-27 04:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sg9ms8$itm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32914 |
On 27/08/2021 03:01, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > it was part > of my early introduction to Microsoft's quality standards - > "sort of works, most of the time" - which formed the philosophy > of the most famous producer of crappy software in history. 'Designed to sell, not to work'.... -- "Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace, community, compassion, investment, security, housing...." "What kind of person is not interested in those things?" "Jeremy Corbyn?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-02 00:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <f8KdnZO7S_NR0q38nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32914 |
On 8/26/21 10:01 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2021-08-26, SixOverFive <hae274b.net> wrote: > >> Drifting around today I found a few interesting antiques >> on the net. One was DOS-6.22 ... and a Turbo Pascal 6 >> compiler that ran on it. Also got the MS Fortran/Pascal/COBOL >> and BASCOM for it. Even more interesting, remember when the >> IBM-PCs first came out ? They came with TWO floppies - >> IBM-DOS and CP/M-86. The originals had CP/M 1.0 while the >> closely-following PC-XTs came with CP/M 1.10 ... >> got BOTH to run inside VirtualBox. Even found an ancient >> Aztec 'C' compiler that'll make CP/M executables AND >> the (rather extensive) manual. > > Hmm, I have an unopened copy of CP/M-86 version 2. > I'll get it uploaded to Bitsavers someday. I think v2, or at least 1.1, came with XPs.Archive has v1, and I've been playing with that. Try "winworld" for ancient DOS stuff. Found IBM-C v1 and IBM-Pascal v2. Lots of Turbo/Borland pascals. Also got MS-C v6 (v7 *expects* Winders stuff) but haven't installed it yet. >> Note, CP/M was rather CRAPPY. It wasn't even usually >> safe to try and append to files because the OS didn't >> keep track of how many bytes were in play. > > CP/M stored file sizes in 128-byte sectors. That's why > that control-Z byte was introduced: so you could tell > when you've hit the exact end of a text file. Most > CP/M software was smart enough to overwrite the 0x1A > character when appending data. > > MS-DOS stores the size of a file as an exact number of > bytes. Unfortunately, it retained the control-Z character, > even though it was now unnecessary. This has caused all > sorts of pain; for instance, if a byte in a text file gets > corrupted to 0x1A, the remainder of the file is lost. > > I never had trouble appending to a CP/M file, but I did > encounter problems with MS-DOS version 3, which contained > a bug: when COMMAND.COM appended data to a text file > (e.g. "dir >>file.txt"), and the existing file ended > with a hex 1A, the hex 1A wasn't overwritten. This meant > that all appended text, although physically present in > the file, would be inaccessible to any program reading it. I never ran into that, but clearly I *could* have. My fav was v5. 6.22 is ok too - but beyond that Winders was *expected* and you'll run into missing drivers and such. > > Although this bug was fixed in the next release, it was part > of my early introduction to Microsoft's quality standards - > "sort of works, most of the time" - which formed the philosophy > of the most famous producer of crappy software in history. > DOS was actually pretty good "quality" - the simplicity was a big help there. As Winders move in further and further though ... I think they just COULDN'T keep their heads wrapped around it all and, profits in mind, they didn't CARE. MS was THE Os (and yes, MS is well-invested in Apple) and the mindset was that the world does it THEIR way or NO way. PAY, and DON'T complain. Which was a good part of why I was a very early Linux person :-) OK, not *that* early, the first one DID have X ... albeit a horrible kinda beta/alpha version. Had to do lots of edits to a LOT of config files just so it'd understand my mouse ..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-02 06:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sgppe306vn@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #33060 |
On 2021-09-02, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: > As Winders move in further and further though ... I think > they just COULDN'T keep their heads wrapped around it all > and, profits in mind, they didn't CARE. MS was THE Os > (and yes, MS is well-invested in Apple) M$ gave Apple $150M to get the Department of Justice off their backs. They realized that that if Apple went down, they'd be unable to defend themselves against accusations that they are a monopoly. They need Apple alive, but weak. And then Apple got strong... > and the mindset > was that the world does it THEIR way or NO way. PAY, > and DON'T complain. And now Apple acts that way too. > Which was a good part of why I was a very early Linux > person :-) I can use Windows and Apple systems, but Linux is the only one in which I can actually feel comfortable. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 02:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tpudnTqkjOVaX6z8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33063 |
On 9/2/21 2:02 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2021-09-02, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: > >> As Winders move in further and further though ... I think >> they just COULDN'T keep their heads wrapped around it all >> and, profits in mind, they didn't CARE. MS was THE Os >> (and yes, MS is well-invested in Apple) > > M$ gave Apple $150M to get the Department of Justice off their > backs. They realized that that if Apple went down, they'd be > unable to defend themselves against accusations that they are > a monopoly. They need Apple alive, but weak. Yep, that was the politic of the time. Jobs and some others had paid their politicians to start anti-Trust proceedings on MS - and Bill, oddly, had forgotten to grease HIS reps. But he learned. > And then Apple got strong... Well, relatively .... >> and the mindset >> was that the world does it THEIR way or NO way. PAY, >> and DON'T complain. > > And now Apple acts that way too. Most ALWAYS did. Apple is a de-facto "closed system". However they cultivated the snooty elite ... clever PR campaigns ... so Apple users DON'T CARE how much 'heathen', affordable, software they're being denied. Paying double/triple shows how rich/important/stylish you are ! Apple products are the modern Rolex. >> Which was a good part of why I was a very early Linux >> person :-) > > I can use Windows and Apple systems, but Linux is the only > one in which I can actually feel comfortable. I haven't had a Win/Apple "main system" in almost 20 YEARS. ALWAYS Linux. No XP, no Vistas, no 7/8/9/10s. I keep track of how to service/fix Winders crap, but I won't USE it myself. This is my brand-new SubNote ... came with Win-10. NEVER EVEN LET IT BOOT. Immediately installed MX instead. Now I have 80% of the little SSD free - instead of the 15% I'd have had with Win. One of my bigger concerns, these days especially, is how much Win/IOS *spy* on you. Shit, Apple has just added code to look for what it THINKS is kiddie porn on your system. Got a pic of your 2-year-old NOT wearing a burquah ... you are GUILTY - the robots SAY you are, can't debate them. They BOTH keep VAST caches/thumbnails the NSA and far worse can exploit. This is the Stasi horror times ten ..... ONLY bad things can result. Oh, for fun, search a Win-2K registry for "NSA" :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web