Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #33436 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-10-21 00:06 -0400 |
| Last post | 2021-10-31 22:46 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-21 00:06 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-10-21 08:27 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-10-21 08:04 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-28 02:08 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-28 09:41 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-10-29 16:39 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-30 07:39 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-29 01:14 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-10-29 16:52 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-10-29 13:08 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-10-29 22:43 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-10-30 04:32 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-30 08:21 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-10-30 13:45 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-10-30 14:54 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-10-30 21:47 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-30 23:14 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-31 01:25 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2021-10-31 04:12 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-31 00:57 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-31 13:35 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-10-31 15:47 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-01 04:44 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-11-01 13:52 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-02 00:13 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-01 22:05 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-03 01:26 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-03 07:02 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-05 00:54 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-02 00:11 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-02 06:17 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-03 00:27 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-02 21:46 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-03 07:26 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-03 17:18 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-03 19:58 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-03 21:34 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-04 11:05 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-04 17:19 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-04 20:13 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-04 16:11 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-04 23:27 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 11:40 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-05 14:09 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 15:53 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-05 09:26 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-05 17:40 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-03 21:02 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2021-11-04 00:01 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-04 11:09 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-04 13:49 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-04 05:01 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-04 13:48 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-04 15:46 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-11-04 15:26 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-04 23:51 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-05 07:37 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-05 08:54 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-05 13:49 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-04 11:08 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-03 17:18 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-10-31 01:52 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-10-31 10:26 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-31 22:52 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-30 08:00 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2021-11-05 17:58 +1100
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-05 17:40 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-28 01:11 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-28 09:39 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-10-28 14:25 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-28 14:49 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-29 01:07 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-10-29 08:13 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-31 00:28 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-31 13:24 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-10-28 08:15 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-29 01:36 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-29 09:59 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-10-29 16:52 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-30 01:49 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-30 07:59 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-30 07:53 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-02 01:04 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-02 08:34 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-02 19:09 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-02 23:58 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-02 21:39 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-03 08:36 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-03 11:23 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-03 08:31 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-03 17:18 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-11-06 19:07 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-07 12:15 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-11-07 13:55 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-07 07:59 -0800
Smallpox vaccine date(s) (Was: Who Knew ?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2021-11-11 20:12 +0000
Re: Smallpox vaccine date(s) (Was: Who Knew ?) Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-11-11 20:21 +0000
Re: Smallpox vaccine date(s) (Was: Who Knew ?) "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2021-11-11 15:52 -0500
Re: Smallpox vaccine date(s) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-11 21:19 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-02 08:31 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2021-10-31 00:18 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-31 00:06 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-10-31 07:55 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-31 22:46 -0400
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-31 00:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kYKdndCsEo2kv-P8nZ2dnUU7-cnNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33474 |
On 10/30/21 6:14 PM, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: >> Le 30-10-2021, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> a écrit : >>> Suppose meant was that without the IBM PC (and thus MS-DOS) the x86 >>> might just had been a footnote in today's computer history. We might >>> all use the Motorola M70000 or the Zilog 64-bit line of >>> microprocessors today. >> >> Maybe we would have something else, the point is not to know which >> processor we would use, but to know if the processors would be as >> powerful as what we have today. >> >> And the answer is: yes, of course. > > Agreed. > > But I think there’s a good chance that even without the IBM PC and > MSDOS, x86 would have become as dominant as it is today. The factors > that made IBM choose the 8088 (price, availability, sympathy to existing > components) were relevant to everyone else too. There were a number of good 8/16 chips out at the time and the M68000 was on the very near horizon. The ONLY reason the Intel chip became so popular was because IBM picked it. It looked a little familiar to the CP/M crowd (I actually HAVE CP/M-86 in a VM). Lots of registers, segmented memory. Semi-familiar sorts of instructions. IBM is BIG ... and meant "Business" ... What I always wanted was a SAGE computer ... looked like an IBM box but with a 68k chip and a choice of operating systems (most UNIX-like). Alas they were a low-volume outfit and the price was too high. And MAC ... there's always been something about Apple operating systems that turned me off. The thinking and I just aren't on the same frequency, so to speak. So far as PRICING ... this is where Intel (and Gates) took their big risks. They underpriced on the theory that an IBM unit would sell big enough to let them make it up on volume.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-31 13:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slm63j$o8q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33481 |
On 31/10/2021 04:57, 1p166 wrote: > On 10/30/21 6:14 PM, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> writes: >>> Le 30-10-2021, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> a écrit : >>>> Suppose meant was that without the IBM PC (and thus MS-DOS) the x86 >>>> might just had been a footnote in today's computer history. We might >>>> all use the Motorola M70000 or the Zilog 64-bit line of >>>> microprocessors today. >>> >>> Maybe we would have something else, the point is not to know which >>> processor we would use, but to know if the processors would be as >>> powerful as what we have today. >>> >>> And the answer is: yes, of course. >> >> Agreed. >> >> But I think there’s a good chance that even without the IBM PC and >> MSDOS, x86 would have become as dominant as it is today. The factors >> that made IBM choose the 8088 (price, availability, sympathy to existing >> components) were relevant to everyone else too. > > There were a number of good 8/16 chips out at the time > and the M68000 was on the very near horizon. > > The ONLY reason the Intel chip became so popular was > because IBM picked it. It looked a little familiar > to the CP/M crowd (I actually HAVE CP/M-86 in a VM). More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it easily. The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the hobbysist were all using 6502s. IBM naturally picked a zilog/interl style architecture. Ghastly mistake until the 386 came out. > Lots of registers, segmented memory. Semi-familiar > sorts of instructions. IBM is BIG ... and meant > "Business" ... > > What I always wanted was a SAGE computer ... looked > like an IBM box but with a 68k chip and a choice of > operating systems (most UNIX-like). Alas they were > a low-volume outfit and the price was too high. > > And MAC ... there's always been something about Apple > operating systems that turned me off. The thinking > and I just aren't on the same frequency, so to speak. > Agreed. > So far as PRICING ... this is where Intel (and Gates) > took their big risks. They underpriced on the theory > that an IBM unit would sell big enough to let them > make it up on volume. > Underpriced? you could write MSDOS in a month or two. It wasn't worth anything. More code in the average BIOS! original PC had 8K BIOS. And only 16K RAM!!!! I wrote a BIOS AND a basic OS for a bare metal 8086 AND ported FORTH to it in three months -- "When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics." Josef Stalin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-31 15:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87zgqp6kox.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #33485 |
On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > On 31/10/2021 04:57, 1p166 wrote: >>> >>> But I think there’s a good chance that even without the IBM PC and >>> MSDOS, x86 would have become as dominant as it is today. The factors >>> that made IBM choose the 8088 (price, availability, sympathy to existing >>> components) were relevant to everyone else too. >> There were a number of good 8/16 chips out at the time >> and the M68000 was on the very near horizon. >> The ONLY reason the Intel chip became so popular was >> because IBM picked it. It looked a little familiar >> to the CP/M crowd (I actually HAVE CP/M-86 in a VM). > > More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much > run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it > easily. > The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the > hobbysist were all using 6502s. Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), which has a Z80 CPU. OK, there were may using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the Oric, which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day. But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to code in assembler on a 6502 (C64). -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-01 04:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slnrc4$scc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33487 |
On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >> On 31/10/2021 04:57, 1p166 wrote: >>>> >>>> But I think there’s a good chance that even without the IBM PC and >>>> MSDOS, x86 would have become as dominant as it is today. The factors >>>> that made IBM choose the 8088 (price, availability, sympathy to existing >>>> components) were relevant to everyone else too. >>> There were a number of good 8/16 chips out at the time >>> and the M68000 was on the very near horizon. >>> The ONLY reason the Intel chip became so popular was >>> because IBM picked it. It looked a little familiar >>> to the CP/M crowd (I actually HAVE CP/M-86 in a VM). >> >> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much >> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it >> easily. >> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the >> hobbysist were all using 6502s. > > Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they > mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), which > has a Z80 CPU. Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80. Sinclair came very late to the party. First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious . 1974 or thereabouts The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later. Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business. At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on Z80s/8080s. 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler. As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it. IBM knew hardware. The processors really didn't matter, what mattered was software for it. And Gates understood one thing, the sofware quality didn't matter - what matteerd was getting everybody to use it to the exclusions of anything else. > > OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the Oric, > which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day. > > But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to code > in assembler on a 6502 (C64). > Exactly. Wasn't Apple II a 6502 as well? -- In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone gets full Marx.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-01 13:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87mtmn7ohj.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #33491 |
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much >>> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it >>> easily. >>> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the >>> hobbysist were all using 6502s. >> Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they >> mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), which >> has a Z80 CPU. > > Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80. > > Sinclair came very late to the party. > > First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious > . 1974 or thereabouts "Home computers" are described from any micro as the Altair 8800 (designed 1974 but showed up in January 1975 to start the craze). True, that one had a 8080. > The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again It was released 1976. The 6502 itself is from 1975. About 200 Apple 1 were produced, making it a collector's item today. Only with the Apple 2 a year later they produced large quantities. > Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later. 1977. > Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business. I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer. > At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on > Z80s/8080s. UK "Home micros" with a Z80 (ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPCs, ...) where not shipped with CP/M, although you could probably run it. Did this (in an emulator) with the CPC <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStVxf0XlE0>. > 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler. The UK market (and that's what we're talking here about) saw more Z80 based ZX (Spectrum, 81/80) machines that Commodore 64s. But the UK saw also a big number of Acorn computers, which ran a 6502. Those, like Apple 2s, were rather expensive that they were mainly used in the education sector. If you check some links of <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_computers> it can be noticed that most of the used a Z80. > As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it. The TRS color computer and "clone" Dragon 32/64 did. Latter also sold in numbers. [...] >> OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the >> Oric, >> which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day. >> But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to >> code >> in assembler on a 6502 (C64). >> > > Exactly. Wasn't Apple II a 6502 as well? Yes, but at least in Europe to expensive for the common user. Outside the UK most got a C64, while in the UK Spectrums ruled the market. F'up2 alt.folklore.computers -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-02 00:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <VO6dnTWUCIlQJx38nZ2dnUU7-I1QAAAA@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33499 |
On 11/1/21 1:52 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >> On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much >>>> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it >>>> easily. >>>> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the >>>> hobbysist were all using 6502s. >>> Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they >>> mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), which >>> has a Z80 CPU. >> >> Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80. >> >> Sinclair came very late to the party. >> >> First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious >> . 1974 or thereabouts > > "Home computers" are described from any micro as the Altair 8800 > (designed 1974 but showed up in January 1975 to start the craze). True, > that one had a 8080. > >> The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again > > It was released 1976. The 6502 itself is from 1975. About 200 Apple 1 > were produced, making it a collector's item today. Only with the Apple 2 > a year later they produced large quantities. > >> Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later. > > 1977. > >> Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business. > > I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer. > >> At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on >> Z80s/8080s. > > UK "Home micros" with a Z80 (ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPCs, ...) where not > shipped with CP/M, although you could probably run it. Did this (in an > emulator) with the CPC <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStVxf0XlE0>. > >> 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler. > > The UK market (and that's what we're talking here about) saw more Z80 > based ZX (Spectrum, 81/80) machines that Commodore 64s. > > But the UK saw also a big number of Acorn computers, which ran a > 6502. Those, like Apple 2s, were rather expensive that they were mainly > used in the education sector. > > If you check some links of > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_computers> it can be > noticed that most of the used a Z80. > >> As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it. > > The TRS color computer and "clone" Dragon 32/64 did. Latter also sold in > numbers. > > [...] > >>> OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the >>> Oric, >>> which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day. >>> But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to >>> code >>> in assembler on a 6502 (C64). >>> >> >> Exactly. Wasn't Apple II a 6502 as well? > > Yes, but at least in Europe to expensive for the common user. Outside the > UK most got a C64, while in the UK Spectrums ruled the market. > > F'up2 alt.folklore.computers I remember the ads in magazines and such ... the first "Small-Office PCs". The bits were fitted into something the size of a large desk. S-100 mostly, 8" floppy (or TWO if you were a successful small biz), tape if you were a cheap-ass, 8008 chip. The Altair was a "desktop" by comparison, and had the new and improved 8080 chip. However they were aimed straight at the student/hobby market and I don't think anybody ever tried to integrate them in to a slick "Small Business System". They WERE a sort of "milestone" though because regular Joes could actually kind of AFFORD one - the first real "democratization" of PCs. Apple and Commodore came along shortly after and blew the Altairs out of the water. The 6502 was designed by a bunch of defectors from the Motorola 6800 series. That caused some legal issues, they were originally "too like" the 6800s. More efficient however - and cheaper to make. Soon edged Motorola pretty much out of the 8-bit PC market (except for the CoCo). (Not sure if OS-9 was ever ported to the 6502, but you COULD run it on a CoCo). OS-9 was quite UNIX-ish but a lot more space/cycle efficient. It's still sold - and ain't exactly cheap - mostly for use in embedded systems, esp those that need to be close to Real Time) The TRS-80s were not bad computers at all. They were one of the next steps for Small Business computers. The CP/M was a big advantage and the units were nicely packaged. They were fairly snappy for 8-bitters too, not "trash" at all. And yes they were fine as home/hobby/development PCs. Always wanted one, but could never quite afford one. The final version had a 68000 co-processor board in there. The PETs were of the same paradigm as the TRS-80s, a monitor+keyboard+mainboard in one nicely-styled box. The first had a CRAP "chicklet" keyboard but the follow-ons were much nicer. Could never figure out why they built a nice box with a 99-cent keyboard. PETs, like the TRS, were aimed at the "Small Business" market. They offered similar performance, but except for some one-off efforts I don't think there was a CP/M-6502. Some dual-board models though from short- lived companies. I knew a guy, one of those IQ-200 on-the-edge people, who had a computer shop, but mostly made money writing clones of popular computer games - in MACHINE CODE, BINARY - on a PET. Said it "gave him a buzz" to do it that way :-) He wasn't lying, I watched him doing it. He'd then burn it into ROM cartridges for VIC-20s and C-64s. TI-99/4A ... well ... TI ruined it for themselves by trying Apples thing of making it super-hard for 3rd party developers. Alas the actual 9900 16-bit chip was BARELY used, 95% of the work was done by the GPU. The 9900s were kinda strange too - a funky hardware-based multi-user/multi-tasking setup which stored register sets and stuff in system memory because, at the time, it was actually faster/cheaper than on-chip. "BLWP" - Branch And Load WorkSpace Pointer" ... I remember that instruction. It was never meant as a "small business" PC, and neither were the VICs/C64s/Ataris ... more "Game Systems Plus". A few C64s were put to "business" USE however - for a very long time there was a "local govt channel" and once in a while it'd crash and you'd see the C64 ROM BASIC error message :-) The Brits were also players. The "BBC" computers were pretty good - and sometimes ahead of US pop-culture units. But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it. Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the others went under eventually ... though Commodore made a fair try with the Amigas. Those STILL have fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga support programs too. I bought the original, but there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550 PC (semi)-Clone. The native 550 graphics were superior, but I badly needed full IBM-CGA compatibility and you had to buy a separate board and do some tricky jumper-wire work to get that. Still a great unit, and about a third the price of IBM. I might still have it somewhere, under the pile-o-junk. Anyway, the IBM clones now dominate. A few years back DeGaulle airport, Paris, was paralyzed because it's system for dealing with taxi-way routing went down. Turned out it was running on a PC clone and WINDOWS 3.11 for DECADES. Hey, if it ain't broke ... Always wanted a SAGE computer. Looked like a PC box but it had 68000 series chips and some kind of XENIX-related and similar operating systems. Alas, a small maker, expensive, low-volume, pretty quickly went under. Too bad. Those WERE meant as "small business" boxes. Think you can still buy them on E-Bay, but early BAD experiences with E-Bay and Musks PayPal put me off of them. However I have seen working MicroVAX systems for sale there, they were VERY good systems and the OS was well ahead of its time, meant for medium-scale orgs and businesses. Still have the VMS manual, four inches thick, thin paper, smallish type. ONE day ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-01 22:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <slqgup$oql$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33510 |
On 11/1/21 21:13, 1p166 wrote: > On 11/1/21 1:52 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>> On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> >>>>> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much >>>>> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it >>>>> easily. >>>>> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the >>>>> hobbysist were all using 6502s. >>>> Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they >>>> mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), which >>>> has a Z80 CPU. >>> >>> Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80. >>> >>> Sinclair came very late to the party. >>> >>> First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious >>> . 1974 or thereabouts >> >> "Home computers" are described from any micro as the Altair 8800 >> (designed 1974 but showed up in January 1975 to start the craze). True, >> that one had a 8080. >> >>> The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again >> >> It was released 1976. The 6502 itself is from 1975. About 200 Apple 1 >> were produced, making it a collector's item today. Only with the Apple 2 >> a year later they produced large quantities. >> >>> Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later. >> >> 1977. >> >>> Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business. >> >> I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer. >> >>> At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on >>> Z80s/8080s. >> >> UK "Home micros" with a Z80 (ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPCs, ...) where not >> shipped with CP/M, although you could probably run it. Did this (in an >> emulator) with the CPC <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStVxf0XlE0>. >> >>> 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler. >> >> The UK market (and that's what we're talking here about) saw more Z80 >> based ZX (Spectrum, 81/80) machines that Commodore 64s. >> >> But the UK saw also a big number of Acorn computers, which ran a >> 6502. Those, like Apple 2s, were rather expensive that they were mainly >> used in the education sector. >> >> If you check some links of >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_computers> it can be >> noticed that most of the used a Z80. >> >>> As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it. >> >> The TRS color computer and "clone" Dragon 32/64 did. Latter also sold in >> numbers. >> >> [...] >> >>>> OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the >>>> Oric, >>>> which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day. >>>> But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to >>>> code >>>> in assembler on a 6502 (C64). >>>> >>> >>> Exactly. Wasn't Apple II a 6502 as well? >> >> Yes, but at least in Europe to expensive for the common user. Outside the >> UK most got a C64, while in the UK Spectrums ruled the market. >> >> F'up2 alt.folklore.computers ` The Apple was outside my price range as well. My Amigas were second hand. Years later I had credit and spent a lot to bring the specs on the A2000b up to date with a cool running 68060 with 64 megabytes of ram, a nice video card, and scan-doubler. > > > I remember the ads in magazines and such ... the first > "Small-Office PCs". The bits were fitted into something > the size of a large desk. S-100 mostly, 8" floppy (or > TWO if you were a successful small biz), tape if you > were a cheap-ass, 8008 chip. > > The Altair was a "desktop" by comparison, and had the > new and improved 8080 chip. However they were aimed > straight at the student/hobby market and I don't > think anybody ever tried to integrate them in to > a slick "Small Business System". They WERE a sort > of "milestone" though because regular Joes could > actually kind of AFFORD one - the first real > "democratization" of PCs. Apple and Commodore > came along shortly after and blew the Altairs > out of the water. Well I was not paying close attention as a friend was trying to build a CPM computer in her bedroom. Don't know if she ever got it working. I asked her how much memory I would need for word processing, she said 64 KB and I grabbed a C=64 at the Pacific Stereo store for $200 and next week came back for the VIC 1541 floppy drive which was about $220. > > The 6502 was designed by a bunch of defectors from > the Motorola 6800 series. That caused some legal > issues, they were originally "too like" the 6800s. > More efficient however - and cheaper to make. Soon > edged Motorola pretty much out of the 8-bit PC > market (except for the CoCo). > > (Not sure if OS-9 was ever ported to the 6502, but > you COULD run it on a CoCo). OS-9 was quite UNIX-ish > but a lot more space/cycle efficient. It's still > sold - and ain't exactly cheap - mostly for use > in embedded systems, esp those that need to be > close to Real Time) > > The TRS-80s were not bad computers at all. They were > one of the next steps for Small Business computers. > The CP/M was a big advantage and the units were > nicely packaged. They were fairly snappy for 8-bitters > too, not "trash" at all. And yes they were fine as > home/hobby/development PCs. Always wanted one, but > could never quite afford one. The final version had > a 68000 co-processor board in there. > > The PETs were of the same paradigm as the TRS-80s, > a monitor+keyboard+mainboard in one nicely-styled > box. The first had a CRAP "chicklet" keyboard but > the follow-ons were much nicer. Could never figure > out why they built a nice box with a 99-cent keyboard. > PETs, like the TRS, were aimed at the "Small Business" > market. They offered similar performance, but except > for some one-off efforts I don't think there was a > CP/M-6502. Some dual-board models though from short- > lived companies. Commodore Business Machines was a pioneer of cost reduction. I had a C=64 but did not code but did do book keeping for a man who had gotten several years behind, I did a lot of work in PaperClip from Batteries Included of Canada. The C=128/64 had a chip called an 8502 to run the Commodore side of things but CPM ran on a Zilog Z-80A. that was built in for the purpose. I got the OS from FOG down in Daly City. I got hooked on dungeon crawls then and when i have time I still play Angband on whatever it will run on in my VirtualBox. > > I knew a guy, one of those IQ-200 on-the-edge > people, who had a computer shop, but mostly > made money writing clones of popular computer > games - in MACHINE CODE, BINARY - on a PET. > Said it "gave him a buzz" to do it that way :-) > He wasn't lying, I watched him doing it. He'd > then burn it into ROM cartridges for VIC-20s > and C-64s. > > TI-99/4A ... well ... TI ruined it for themselves > by trying Apples thing of making it super-hard for > 3rd party developers. Alas the actual 9900 16-bit > chip was BARELY used, 95% of the work was done by > the GPU. The 9900s were kinda strange too - a funky > hardware-based multi-user/multi-tasking setup > which stored register sets and stuff in system > memory because, at the time, it was actually > faster/cheaper than on-chip. "BLWP" - Branch > And Load WorkSpace Pointer" ... I remember > that instruction. It was never meant as a > "small business" PC, and neither were the > VICs/C64s/Ataris ... more "Game Systems Plus". > A few C64s were put to "business" USE however - > for a very long time there was a "local govt > channel" and once in a while it'd crash and > you'd see the C64 ROM BASIC error message :-) > > The Brits were also players. The "BBC" computers were > pretty good - and sometimes ahead of US pop-culture > units. > > But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great > of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it. > Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the > others went under eventually ... though Commodore > made a fair try with the Amigas. Those STILL have > fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the > Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga > support programs too. I bought the original, but > there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages > that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550 > PC (semi)-Clone. Well I did bookkeeping and more on the Amiga from the A1000 to the 2000b and wasted a lot of money on them. But they were the best of the time which passed about 1995 when the Windows got useful. The IBM PC had is own problems and eventually failed due to faster cheaper clones. CBM tried to build its own PC line but the people in charge were not computer users nor knew what they were about. Finally a debtor took over the company and used it as a Cash Cow and milked it dry and right into bankruptcy. The Amiga IP was up for grabs and the right folks did not get it. > > The native 550 graphics were superior, > but I badly needed full IBM-CGA compatibility and > you had to buy a separate board and do some tricky > jumper-wire work to get that. Still a great unit, > and about a third the price of IBM. I might still > have it somewhere, under the pile-o-junk. > > Anyway, the IBM clones now dominate. A few years > back DeGaulle airport, Paris, was paralyzed because > it's system for dealing with taxi-way routing went > down. Turned out it was running on a PC clone and > WINDOWS 3.11 for DECADES. Hey, if it ain't broke ... If it ain't broke this week wait for the updates to take it down. An important computer with traffic control should have been better maintained. Not clones anymore, x86 computers dominate and what do you run Linux on anyway. Some builders make them reliable machines. > > Always wanted a SAGE computer. Looked like a PC box > but it had 68000 series chips and some kind of > XENIX-related and similar operating systems. Alas, > a small maker, expensive, low-volume, pretty quickly > went under. Too bad. Those WERE meant as "small > business" boxes. Think you can still buy them > on E-Bay, but early BAD experiences with E-Bay > and Musks PayPal put me off of them. However I > have seen working MicroVAX systems for sale there, > they were VERY good systems and the OS was well > ahead of its time, meant for medium-scale orgs > and businesses. Still have the VMS manual, four > inches thick, thin paper, smallish type. ONE day ... The Sage was pretty and even more expensive than the Amiga. I looked and looked but never got one. bliss -- bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-03 01:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dpednXa_tOAXgB_8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33513 |
On 11/2/21 1:05 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > On 11/1/21 21:13, 1p166 wrote: >> On 11/1/21 1:52 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>> On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much >>>>>> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it >>>>>> easily. >>>>>> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the >>>>>> hobbysist were all using 6502s. >>>>> Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they >>>>> mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), >>>>> which >>>>> has a Z80 CPU. >>>> >>>> Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80. >>>> >>>> Sinclair came very late to the party. >>>> >>>> First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious >>>> . 1974 or thereabouts >>> >>> "Home computers" are described from any micro as the Altair 8800 >>> (designed 1974 but showed up in January 1975 to start the craze). True, >>> that one had a 8080. >>> >>>> The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again >>> >>> It was released 1976. The 6502 itself is from 1975. About 200 Apple 1 >>> were produced, making it a collector's item today. Only with the Apple 2 >>> a year later they produced large quantities. >>> >>>> Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later. >>> >>> 1977. >>> >>>> Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business. >>> >>> I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer. >>> >>>> At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on >>>> Z80s/8080s. >>> >>> UK "Home micros" with a Z80 (ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPCs, ...) where not >>> shipped with CP/M, although you could probably run it. Did this (in an >>> emulator) with the CPC <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStVxf0XlE0>. >>> >>>> 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler. >>> >>> The UK market (and that's what we're talking here about) saw more Z80 >>> based ZX (Spectrum, 81/80) machines that Commodore 64s. >>> >>> But the UK saw also a big number of Acorn computers, which ran a >>> 6502. Those, like Apple 2s, were rather expensive that they were mainly >>> used in the education sector. >>> >>> If you check some links of >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_computers> it can be >>> noticed that most of the used a Z80. >>> >>>> As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it. >>> >>> The TRS color computer and "clone" Dragon 32/64 did. Latter also sold in >>> numbers. >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the >>>>> Oric, >>>>> which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day. >>>>> But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to >>>>> code >>>>> in assembler on a 6502 (C64). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Exactly. Wasn't Apple II a 6502 as well? >>> >>> Yes, but at least in Europe to expensive for the common user. Outside >>> the >>> UK most got a C64, while in the UK Spectrums ruled the market. >>> >>> F'up2 alt.folklore.computers > > ` The Apple was outside my price range as well. > My Amigas were second hand. > Years later I had credit and spent a lot to bring > the specs on the A2000b up to date with a cool running 68060 > with 64 megabytes of ram, a nice video card, and scan-doubler. > > >> >> >> I remember the ads in magazines and such ... the first >> "Small-Office PCs". The bits were fitted into something >> the size of a large desk. S-100 mostly, 8" floppy (or >> TWO if you were a successful small biz), tape if you >> were a cheap-ass, 8008 chip. >> >> The Altair was a "desktop" by comparison, and had the >> new and improved 8080 chip. However they were aimed >> straight at the student/hobby market and I don't >> think anybody ever tried to integrate them in to >> a slick "Small Business System". They WERE a sort >> of "milestone" though because regular Joes could >> actually kind of AFFORD one - the first real >> "democratization" of PCs. Apple and Commodore >> came along shortly after and blew the Altairs >> out of the water. > > Well I was not paying close attention as a friend > was trying to build a CPM computer in her bedroom. Don't > know if she ever got it working. I asked her how much > memory I would need for word processing, she said 64 KB > and I grabbed a C=64 at the Pacific Stereo store for $200 > and next week came back for the VIC 1541 floppy drive which > was about $220. >> >> The 6502 was designed by a bunch of defectors from >> the Motorola 6800 series. That caused some legal >> issues, they were originally "too like" the 6800s. >> More efficient however - and cheaper to make. Soon >> edged Motorola pretty much out of the 8-bit PC >> market (except for the CoCo). >> >> (Not sure if OS-9 was ever ported to the 6502, but >> you COULD run it on a CoCo). OS-9 was quite UNIX-ish >> but a lot more space/cycle efficient. It's still >> sold - and ain't exactly cheap - mostly for use >> in embedded systems, esp those that need to be >> close to Real Time) >> >> The TRS-80s were not bad computers at all. They were >> one of the next steps for Small Business computers. >> The CP/M was a big advantage and the units were >> nicely packaged. They were fairly snappy for 8-bitters >> too, not "trash" at all. And yes they were fine as >> home/hobby/development PCs. Always wanted one, but >> could never quite afford one. The final version had >> a 68000 co-processor board in there. >> >> The PETs were of the same paradigm as the TRS-80s, >> a monitor+keyboard+mainboard in one nicely-styled >> box. The first had a CRAP "chicklet" keyboard but >> the follow-ons were much nicer. Could never figure >> out why they built a nice box with a 99-cent keyboard. >> PETs, like the TRS, were aimed at the "Small Business" >> market. They offered similar performance, but except >> for some one-off efforts I don't think there was a >> CP/M-6502. Some dual-board models though from short- >> lived companies. > > Commodore Business Machines was a pioneer of cost > reduction. > I had a C=64 but did not code but did do book keeping > for a man who had gotten several years behind, > I did a lot of work in PaperClip from Batteries > Included of Canada. > The C=128/64 had a chip called an 8502 to run the > Commodore side of things but CPM ran on a Zilog Z-80A. > that was built in for the purpose. I got the OS from > FOG down in Daly City. I got hooked on dungeon crawls > then and when i have time I still play Angband on whatever > it will run on in my VirtualBox. There were a number of "dual chip" units back in the day. They wanted to support the Latest Stuff, but ALSO wanted to support the CP/M universe of biz software. The TRS with the 68K chip was perhaps the most powerful of those dual-chip boxes. But the 16-bit chips and a lot more memory made it WAY easy to write vastly superior apps - and the 8-bit and CP/M universes collapsed. Not much in the way of dual-chip endeavours after that (OK there ARE those Arduinos and maybe you can count the x86+ NVidia setups often used for mining bitcoins). >> >> I knew a guy, one of those IQ-200 on-the-edge >> people, who had a computer shop, but mostly >> made money writing clones of popular computer >> games - in MACHINE CODE, BINARY - on a PET. >> Said it "gave him a buzz" to do it that way :-) >> He wasn't lying, I watched him doing it. He'd >> then burn it into ROM cartridges for VIC-20s >> and C-64s. >> >> TI-99/4A ... well ... TI ruined it for themselves >> by trying Apples thing of making it super-hard for >> 3rd party developers. Alas the actual 9900 16-bit >> chip was BARELY used, 95% of the work was done by >> the GPU. The 9900s were kinda strange too - a funky >> hardware-based multi-user/multi-tasking setup >> which stored register sets and stuff in system >> memory because, at the time, it was actually >> faster/cheaper than on-chip. "BLWP" - Branch >> And Load WorkSpace Pointer" ... I remember >> that instruction. It was never meant as a >> "small business" PC, and neither were the >> VICs/C64s/Ataris ... more "Game Systems Plus". >> A few C64s were put to "business" USE however - >> for a very long time there was a "local govt >> channel" and once in a while it'd crash and >> you'd see the C64 ROM BASIC error message :-) >> >> The Brits were also players. The "BBC" computers were >> pretty good - and sometimes ahead of US pop-culture >> units. >> >> But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great >> of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it. >> Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the >> others went under eventually ... though Commodore >> made a fair try with the Amigas. Those STILL have >> fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the >> Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga >> support programs too. I bought the original, but >> there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages >> that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550 >> PC (semi)-Clone. > > Well I did bookkeeping and more on the Amiga > from the A1000 to the 2000b and wasted a lot of money > on them. But they were the best of the time which > passed about 1995 when the Windows got useful. IMHO, the Amigas were "gimmicks" to keep up the Commodore stock prices so the executives could plunder the company. Nothing Amiga could do that IBM or Apple couldn't -or couldn't soon- exceed and the bosses knew it. Goddamned "Guru Meditations" ... they quickly forced me in a given direction. Given Apples "closed box" philosophy I think I chose correctly. > The IBM PC had is own problems and eventually > failed due to faster cheaper clones. A *business* failure, not a *technical* failure. As I said, I put my meager paycheck into a CLONE. > CBM tried to > build its own PC line but the people in charge were > not computer users nor knew what they were about. > Finally a debtor took over the company and used it > as a Cash Cow and milked it dry and right into bankruptcy. > The Amiga IP was up for grabs and the right folks > did not get it. CBM was doomed. There could only be two "sides". The big people knew this, and thus took the money and ran. >> >> The native 550 graphics were superior, >> but I badly needed full IBM-CGA compatibility and >> you had to buy a separate board and do some tricky >> jumper-wire work to get that. Still a great unit, >> and about a third the price of IBM. I might still >> have it somewhere, under the pile-o-junk. >> >> Anyway, the IBM clones now dominate. A few years >> back DeGaulle airport, Paris, was paralyzed because >> it's system for dealing with taxi-way routing went >> down. Turned out it was running on a PC clone and >> WINDOWS 3.11 for DECADES. Hey, if it ain't broke ... > > If it ain't broke this week wait for the updates > to take it down. Heh heh heh ... KNOW what you mean ! :-) > An important computer with traffic > control should have been better maintained. But it didn't NEED to be "maintained". It was perfect as it was. The problem wasn't software, the mainboard developed a fault. FAIR chance, though I'm not 100% sure, they just moved the same app to a slightly newer motherboard - a Core-2-Quad or something that could still run 8/16 code. A VM could also do it. I have CP/M-86 running in a VM - AND a good 'C' compiler, for fun. > Not clones anymore, x86 computers dominate and > what do you run Linux on anyway. Some builders make > them reliable machines. Almost all of the clones are good machines. I prefer ASUS boards these days. Their "B" series are good solid hardware. Their "ROG-STRIX" are maybe even better, but a tad more expensive. GOTTA turn off all those blinky LEDS though ! >> Always wanted a SAGE computer. Looked like a PC box >> but it had 68000 series chips and some kind of >> XENIX-related and similar operating systems. Alas, >> a small maker, expensive, low-volume, pretty quickly >> went under. Too bad. Those WERE meant as "small >> business" boxes. Think you can still buy them >> on E-Bay, but early BAD experiences with E-Bay >> and Musks PayPal put me off of them. However I >> have seen working MicroVAX systems for sale there, >> they were VERY good systems and the OS was well >> ahead of its time, meant for medium-scale orgs >> and businesses. Still have the VMS manual, four >> inches thick, thin paper, smallish type. ONE day ... > > The Sage was pretty and even more expensive than the > Amiga. I looked and looked but never got one. I lusted ... but my paycheck was too small at the time. I loved the 68k, but also wanted a more biz/development OS environment. SAGE had that. Now I have a bigger paycheck - but SAGE is gone. Fortunately Linus stepped in - and some the BSDs are good too. Got a bad shock today trying to upgrade my Buster to Bullseye ... the apt full-upgrade hit an error halfway through and trashed it. Cannot find any option that really says "ignore ALL errors and keep going". Fortunately I'd used gparted to make a full copy of my existing system. Alas my Buster is chock-FULL of add-on software that was meticulously added and tweaked. Really REALLY don't want to start all over again. Winders really IS better in this respect, but maybe ONLY that respect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-03 07:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <slu4pe$8vj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33532 |
On 11/2/21 22:26, 1p166 wrote:
>>
>> Well I did bookkeeping and more on the Amiga
>> from the A1000 to the 2000b and wasted a lot of money
>> on them. But they were the best of the time which
>> passed about 1995 when the Windows got useful.
>
> IMHO, the Amigas were "gimmicks" to keep up the
> Commodore stock prices so the executives could
> plunder the company. Nothing Amiga could do that
> IBM or Apple couldn't -or couldn't soon- exceed
> and the bosses knew it.
Every hear of the VideoToaster. Originally an Amiga
2000 Zorro card. Later the company building it stripped
of the Amiga id from the boxes one on the very largest
boxes that was not a tower, then they added their card
and sold it to the TV broadcast station of the time for
subtitling and other functions. Used to see occasionally
the TV screen vanish with instructions to insert the
Kickstart disk or similar.
>
> Goddamned "Guru Meditations" ... they quickly
> forced me in a given direction. Given Apples
> "closed box" philosophy I think I chose correctly.
>
>> The IBM PC had is own problems and eventually
>> failed due to faster cheaper clones.
>
> A *business* failure, not a *technical* failure.
> As I said, I put my meager paycheck into a CLONE.
>
>> CBM tried to
>> build its own PC line but the people in charge were
>> not computer users nor knew what they were about.
>> Finally a debtor took over the company and used it
>> as a Cash Cow and milked it dry and right into bankruptcy.
>> The Amiga IP was up for grabs and the right folks
>> did not get it.
>
> CBM was doomed. There could only be two "sides".
> The big people knew this, and thus took the money
> and ran.
>
>>>
>>> The native 550 graphics were superior,
>>> but I badly needed full IBM-CGA compatibility and
>>> you had to buy a separate board and do some tricky
>>> jumper-wire work to get that. Still a great unit,
>>> and about a third the price of IBM. I might still
>>> have it somewhere, under the pile-o-junk.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the IBM clones now dominate. A few years
>>> back DeGaulle airport, Paris, was paralyzed because
>>> it's system for dealing with taxi-way routing went
>>> down. Turned out it was running on a PC clone and
>>> WINDOWS 3.11 for DECADES. Hey, if it ain't broke ...
>>
>> If it ain't broke this week wait for the updates
>> to take it down.
>
> Heh heh heh ... KNOW what you mean ! :-)
>
>> An important computer with traffic
>> control should have been better maintained.
>
> But it didn't NEED to be "maintained". It was
> perfect as it was. The problem wasn't software,
> the mainboard developed a fault. FAIR chance,
> though I'm not 100% sure, they just moved the
> same app to a slightly newer motherboard -
> a Core-2-Quad or something that could still
> run 8/16 code. A VM could also do it. I have
> CP/M-86 running in a VM - AND a good 'C'
> compiler, for fun.
>
>> Not clones anymore, x86 computers dominate and
>> what do you run Linux on anyway. Some builders make
>> them reliable machines.
>
> Almost all of the clones are good machines. I prefer
> ASUS boards these days. Their "B" series are good
> solid hardware. Their "ROG-STRIX" are maybe even
> better, but a tad more expensive. GOTTA turn off
> all those blinky LEDS though !
>
>>> Always wanted a SAGE computer. Looked like a PC box
>>> but it had 68000 series chips and some kind of
>>> XENIX-related and similar operating systems. Alas,
>>> a small maker, expensive, low-volume, pretty quickly
>>> went under. Too bad. Those WERE meant as "small
>>> business" boxes. Think you can still buy them
>>> on E-Bay, but early BAD experiences with E-Bay
>>> and Musks PayPal put me off of them. However I
>>> have seen working MicroVAX systems for sale there,
>>> they were VERY good systems and the OS was well
>>> ahead of its time, meant for medium-scale orgs
>>> and businesses. Still have the VMS manual, four
>>> inches thick, thin paper, smallish type. ONE day ...
>>
>> The Sage was pretty and even more expensive than the
>> Amiga. I looked and looked but never got one.
>
> I lusted ... but my paycheck was too small at
> the time. I loved the 68k, but also wanted a
> more biz/development OS environment. SAGE had
> that.
>
> Now I have a bigger paycheck - but SAGE is gone.
> Fortunately Linus stepped in - and some the
> BSDs are good too.
>
> Got a bad shock today trying to upgrade my Buster
> to Bullseye ... the apt full-upgrade hit an error
> halfway through and trashed it. Cannot find any
> option that really says "ignore ALL errors and
> keep going". Fortunately I'd used gparted to
> make a full copy of my existing system. Alas
> my Buster is chock-FULL of add-on software
> that was meticulously added and tweaked. Really
> REALLY don't want to start all over again.
> Winders really IS better in this respect, but
> maybe ONLY that respect.
I will say only that I am sorry to hear of your
problems with Debian upgrades
There is PCLinuxOS 64 a rolling release with very
good support through an active forum at:
<https://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.php>
My Dell Latitudes 6520, 6540 and 7450 have
not done much complaining on the PCLinux diet.
bliss-“Nearly any fool can use a GNU/Linux computer. Many do.”
After all here I am...
--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-05 00:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7cGdnZDyPNK-JBn8nZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33538 |
On 11/3/21 10:02 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > On 11/2/21 22:26, 1p166 wrote: > > >> Got a bad shock today trying to upgrade my Buster >> to Bullseye ... the apt full-upgrade hit an error >> halfway through and trashed it. Cannot find any >> option that really says "ignore ALL errors and >> keep going". Fortunately I'd used gparted to >> make a full copy of my existing system. Alas >> my Buster is chock-FULL of add-on software >> that was meticulously added and tweaked. Really >> REALLY don't want to start all over again. >> Winders really IS better in this respect, but >> maybe ONLY that respect. > I will say only that I am sorry to hear of your > problems with Debian upgrades It got WORSE today. Made a "blank" BullsEye install and then brute-forced my Buster home stuff on top of it. SEEMED ok at first, but a good THIRD of the software that I regularly use either wasn't in the repo or just DIDN'T WORK. Hey, TRY to install Lazarus - infinite BS about the FPC version being wrong and I tried several versions. VirtualBox said I needed to sign certain kernal modules (NOT an easy proposition) so UEFI would be happy - but it's not a UEFI system. Deb USED to be great about only offering a new version when it was dead solid. Hell, I might have to bite it and move back to Mint after all these years. Anyway, BullsEye is NOT ready for prime time. Maybe in six months or so. Deb needs to get it right and external providers need to get their ports right. DID encounter a disto that seemed to work pretty smoothly using BullsEye as a base - MX-21. Always liked MX ... this laptop is MX. Maybe that'd be even better than Mint or Lubuntu.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-02 00:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <VO6dnTqUCIkYJx38nZ2dnUU7-I3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33499 |
On 11/1/21 1:52 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >> On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much >>>> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it >>>> easily. >>>> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the >>>> hobbysist were all using 6502s. >>> Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they >>> mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), which >>> has a Z80 CPU. >> >> Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80. >> >> Sinclair came very late to the party. >> >> First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious >> . 1974 or thereabouts > > "Home computers" are described from any micro as the Altair 8800 > (designed 1974 but showed up in January 1975 to start the craze). True, > that one had a 8080. > >> The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again > > It was released 1976. The 6502 itself is from 1975. About 200 Apple 1 > were produced, making it a collector's item today. Only with the Apple 2 > a year later they produced large quantities. > >> Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later. > > 1977. > >> Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business. > > I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer. > >> At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on >> Z80s/8080s. > > UK "Home micros" with a Z80 (ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPCs, ...) where not > shipped with CP/M, although you could probably run it. Did this (in an > emulator) with the CPC <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStVxf0XlE0>. > >> 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler. > > The UK market (and that's what we're talking here about) saw more Z80 > based ZX (Spectrum, 81/80) machines that Commodore 64s. > > But the UK saw also a big number of Acorn computers, which ran a > 6502. Those, like Apple 2s, were rather expensive that they were mainly > used in the education sector. > > If you check some links of > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_computers> it can be > noticed that most of the used a Z80. > >> As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it. > > The TRS color computer and "clone" Dragon 32/64 did. Latter also sold in > numbers. > > [...] > >>> OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the >>> Oric, >>> which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day. >>> But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to >>> code >>> in assembler on a 6502 (C64). >>> >> >> Exactly. Wasn't Apple II a 6502 as well? > > Yes, but at least in Europe to expensive for the common user. Outside the > UK most got a C64, while in the UK Spectrums ruled the market. > > F'up2 alt.folklore.computers I remember the ads in magazines and such ... the first "Small-Office PCs". The bits were fitted into something the size of a large desk. S-100 mostly, 8" floppy (or TWO if you were a successful small biz), tape if you were a cheap-ass, 8008 chip. The Altair was a "desktop" by comparison, and had the new and improved 8080 chip. However they were aimed straight at the student/hobby market and I don't think anybody ever tried to integrate them in to a slick "Small Business System". They WERE a sort of "milestone" though because regular Joes could actually kind of AFFORD one - the first real "democratization" of PCs. Apple and Commodore came along shortly after and blew the Altairs out of the water. The 6502 was designed by a bunch of defectors from the Motorola 6800 series. That caused some legal issues, they were originally "too like" the 6800s. More efficient however - and cheaper to make. Soon edged Motorola pretty much out of the 8-bit PC market (except for the CoCo). (Not sure if OS-9 was ever ported to the 6502, but you COULD run it on a CoCo). OS-9 was quite UNIX-ish but a lot more space/cycle efficient. It's still sold - and ain't exactly cheap - mostly for use in embedded systems, esp those that need to be close to Real Time) The TRS-80s were not bad computers at all. They were one of the next steps for Small Business computers. The CP/M was a big advantage and the units were nicely packaged. They were fairly snappy for 8-bitters too, not "trash" at all. And yes they were fine as home/hobby/development PCs. Always wanted one, but could never quite afford one. The final version had a 68000 co-processor board in there. The PETs were of the same paradigm as the TRS-80s, a monitor+keyboard+mainboard in one nicely-styled box. The first had a CRAP "chicklet" keyboard but the follow-ons were much nicer. Could never figure out why they built a nice box with a 99-cent keyboard. PETs, like the TRS, were aimed at the "Small Business" market. They offered similar performance, but except for some one-off efforts I don't think there was a CP/M-6502. Some dual-board models though from short- lived companies. I knew a guy, one of those IQ-200 on-the-edge people, who had a computer shop, but mostly made money writing clones of popular computer games - in MACHINE CODE, BINARY - on a PET. Said it "gave him a buzz" to do it that way :-) He wasn't lying, I watched him doing it. He'd then burn it into ROM cartridges for VIC-20s and C-64s. TI-99/4A ... well ... TI ruined it for themselves by trying Apples thing of making it super-hard for 3rd party developers. Alas the actual 9900 16-bit chip was BARELY used, 95% of the work was done by the GPU. The 9900s were kinda strange too - a funky hardware-based multi-user/multi-tasking setup which stored register sets and stuff in system memory because, at the time, it was actually faster/cheaper than on-chip. "BLWP" - Branch And Load WorkSpace Pointer" ... I remember that instruction. It was never meant as a "small business" PC, and neither were the VICs/C64s/Ataris ... more "Game Systems Plus". A few C64s were put to "business" USE however - for a very long time there was a "local govt channel" and once in a while it'd crash and you'd see the C64 ROM BASIC error message :-) The Brits were also players. The "BBC" computers were pretty good - and sometimes ahead of US pop-culture units. But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it. Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the others went under eventually ... though Commodore made a fair try with the Amigas. Those STILL have fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga support programs too. I bought the original, but there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550 PC (semi)-Clone. The native 550 graphics were superior, but I badly needed full IBM-CGA compatibility and you had to buy a separate board and do some tricky jumper-wire work to get that. Still a great unit, and about a third the price of IBM. I might still have it somewhere, under the pile-o-junk. Anyway, the IBM clones now dominate. A few years back DeGaulle airport, Paris, was paralyzed because it's system for dealing with taxi-way routing went down. Turned out it was running on a PC clone and WINDOWS 3.11 for DECADES. Hey, if it ain't broke ... Always wanted a SAGE computer. Looked like a PC box but it had 68000 series chips and some kind of XENIX-related and similar operating systems. Alas, a small maker, expensive, low-volume, pretty quickly went under. Too bad. Those WERE meant as "small business" boxes. Think you can still buy them on E-Bay, but early BAD experiences with E-Bay and Musks PayPal put me off of them. However I have seen working MicroVAX systems for sale there, they were VERY good systems and the OS was well ahead of its time, meant for medium-scale orgs and businesses. Still have the VMS manual, four inches thick, thin paper, smallish type. ONE day ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-02 06:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HJ4gJ.14924$lz3.8919@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #33511 |
On 2021-11-02, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great > of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it. :-( > Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the > others went under eventually ... though Commodore > made a fair try with the Amigas. Commodore techs made a fair try. Commodore management ran the company into the ground. At one point the president and CEO (Irving Gould and Mehdi Ali) were pulling down bigger salaries than the heads of IBM - while the techies and marketing staff starved. Shareholder meetings were held in the Bahamas to discourage those pesky shareholders from attending. > Those STILL have > fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the > Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga > support programs too. I bought the original, but > there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages > that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550 > PC (semi)-Clone. The Amiga's biggest shortcoming was its lack of memory protection. If you stayed away from buggy software that stomped on random memory locations, you could avoid almost all Guru Meditations. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful - X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-03 00:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <eOednZLpMLVSkh_8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33516 |
up On 11/2/21 2:17 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2021-11-02, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > >> But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great >> of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it. > > :-( > >> Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the >> others went under eventually ... though Commodore >> made a fair try with the Amigas. > > Commodore techs made a fair try. Commodore management > ran the company into the ground. Rats. Sinking ship. What did you expect ? Pretend make an visible effort, to keep the stock prices up while cashing-in to the max. Commodore was OVER. It had its day in the sun but IBM (& clones) and Apple were IT - the future. Whatever Amiga could do, Mac could do, or soon do, better - and had a bigger customer base. The Market at the time was consolidating. Only two main players. All the fringe players were OUT. Take the money and RUN. Sorry, but Amiga was NOT a competitor. It had its good features, but others, better capitalized, soon copied and exceeded them. That's the way it goes. Whatever the Next Big Thing is, there will initially be a bunch of players. Again, probably TWO will become IT and all the others will wither away. And even that duality will be something of a lie ... the BIG people will have stock/influence in BOTH "sides". Humans LOVE "duality", choices or false choices. PLAY that psychology for profit. Cynical ? Check it out. REAL. MS is heavily invested in Apple and vice-versa. Check it out, you can confirm that. The "sides" are all for show, a way of goading consumers and pushing out competitors. Swear your loyalty to Winders or Mac ! So EXCITING to choose a side. The Big Money people had this figured out LONG ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli understood the utility of cultivating those fake "sides".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-02 21:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <slt47d$58i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33528 |
On 11/2/21 21:27, 1p166 wrote: > up > On 11/2/21 2:17 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2021-11-02, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: >> >>> But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great >>> of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it. >> >> :-( And the IBM PC was killed by its own clones. >> >>> Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the >>> others went under eventually ... though Commodore >>> made a fair try with the Amigas. Actually they were failing until the brought Jobs back and he brought the NextOS with him which became the OS X eventually.. >> >> Commodore techs made a fair try. Commodore management >> ran the company into the ground. > > Rats. Sinking ship. What did you expect ? Pretend > make an visible effort, to keep the stock prices up > while cashing-in to the max. The company went under because the management had no idea what they had in the Amiga. > > Commodore was OVER. It had its day in the sun but > IBM (& clones) and Apple were IT - the future. > Whatever Amiga could do, Mac could do, or soon > do, better - and had a bigger customer base. Actually the fastest Mac at one time was an Amiga with emulator. > > The Market at the time was consolidating. Only > two main players. All the fringe players were > OUT. Take the money and RUN. > > Sorry, but Amiga was NOT a competitor. It had > its good features, but others, better capitalized, > soon copied and exceeded them. No one copied it except with vastly greater CPU power and separately designed graphics cards/ > > That's the way it goes. > > Whatever the Next Big Thing is, there will initially > be a bunch of players. Again, probably TWO will become > IT and all the others will wither away. > > And even that duality will be something of a lie ... > the BIG people will have stock/influence in BOTH > "sides". Humans LOVE "duality", choices or false > choices. PLAY that psychology for profit. > > Cynical ? Check it out. REAL. > > MS is heavily invested in Apple and vice-versa. > Check it out, you can confirm that. The "sides" > are all for show, a way of goading consumers > and pushing out competitors. Swear your loyalty > to Winders or Mac ! So EXCITING to choose a side. > > The Big Money people had this figured out LONG > ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli > understood the utility of cultivating those > fake "sides". I chose GNU/Linux and old x86 laptops. bliss -- bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-03 07:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20211103072641.1f36fd9ef1e2138951d0396c@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #33528 |
On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > The Big Money people had this figured out LONG > ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli > understood the utility of cultivating those > fake "sides". Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and have been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I fairly recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly simplistic and naive, that was a sobering discovery. The indoctrination for it starts in the earliest school with "What's your favourite colour" and gets strengthened outside the classroom with "Who do you support". I remain thankful that Hermann Göring's astute observation on the ease of raising war fever is not widely utilised today - I remain slightly suspicious about the Falkland's War being a field test of the principle, it was certainly a good demonstration if not. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-03 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <RvzgJ.30520$Kw9.8925@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #33533 |
On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400 > 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > >> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG >> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli >> understood the utility of cultivating those >> fake "sides". > > Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of > Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and have > been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I fairly > recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly simplistic and naive, > that was a sobering discovery. It was a bit heavy-handed, perhaps, but still relevant in many ways. The telescreens have not only been deployed, but improved beyond what was in the book. At least Orwell's telescreens stayed on the wall instead of following you around the house. My wife and I just finished re-reading both _Animal Farm_ and _Brave New World_. Both are frighteningly close to what we're seeing today, although _Brave New World's_ "soma" has been replaced by social media. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | "Alexa, define 'bugging'." X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | / \ if you read it the right way. |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-03 19:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20211103195806.3f51c2f392a43944cfa3df04@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #33541 |
On Wed, 03 Nov 2021 17:18:41 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400 > > 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > > > >> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG > >> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli > >> understood the utility of cultivating those > >> fake "sides". > > > > Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of > > Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and > > have been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I > > fairly recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly > > simplistic and naive, that was a sobering discovery. > > It was a bit heavy-handed, perhaps, but still relevant in many ways. > The telescreens have not only been deployed, but improved beyond > what was in the book. At least Orwell's telescreens stayed on the > wall instead of following you around the house. What Orwell missed completely was that all of this has not needed to be imposed by an authoritative Big Brother with lethal enforcement but rather has been dangled and freely chosen like Coffiest. Orwell made it look like it should be easy to avoid developing a society like that, just keep hold of the essential freedoms and your good - right ? Wrong, as it turns out it's far easier to keep people in line with carrots than sticks, and carrots leave far more room for subtlety just as there are far more subtle ways of keeping people scared than an endless rotating war. Like I say simplistic and naive. > My wife and I just finished re-reading both _Animal Farm_ and > _Brave New World_. Both are frighteningly close to what we're > seeing today, although _Brave New World's_ "soma" has been > replaced by social media. For sure, both of those speak to deep rooted truths about human nature - sad really. Just wait till we get sentient robots and reinvent slavery. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-03 21:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <NfDgJ.25017$ya3.6058@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #33544 |
On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Nov 2021 17:18:41 GMT > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400 >>> 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: >>> >>>> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG >>>> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli >>>> understood the utility of cultivating those >>>> fake "sides". >>> >>> Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of >>> Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and >>> have been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I >>> fairly recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly >>> simplistic and naive, that was a sobering discovery. >> >> It was a bit heavy-handed, perhaps, but still relevant in many ways. >> The telescreens have not only been deployed, but improved beyond >> what was in the book. At least Orwell's telescreens stayed on the >> wall instead of following you around the house. > > What Orwell missed completely was that all of this has not needed > to be imposed by an authoritative Big Brother with lethal enforcement but > rather has been dangled and freely chosen like Coffiest. Yes, it didn't occur to Orwell that Big Brother would actually turn out to be Big Business. But let's face it, that one went past most people (but not Pohl & Kornbluth, as you point out). > Orwell made it look like it should be easy to avoid developing a > society like that, just keep hold of the essential freedoms and your good - > right ? Wrong, as it turns out it's far easier to keep people in line with > carrots than sticks, and carrots leave far more room for subtlety just as > there are far more subtle ways of keeping people scared than an endless > rotating war. Like I say simplistic and naive. > >> My wife and I just finished re-reading both _Animal Farm_ and >> _Brave New World_. Both are frighteningly close to what we're >> seeing today, although _Brave New World's_ "soma" has been >> replaced by social media. > > For sure, both of those speak to deep rooted truths about human > nature - sad really. Just wait till we get sentient robots and reinvent > slavery. Societies seem to need a slave class. _Brave New World_ described this in some detail. We thought that machines would take the place of this class - but instead have turned out to be agents of the ruling class. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful - X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-04 11:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sm0epi$8se$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33544 |
On 03/11/2021 19:58, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > For sure, both of those speak to deep rooted truths about human > nature - sad really. Just wait till we get sentient robots and reinvent > slavery. We never lost slavery. We just use poverty and debt, not chains. -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-04 17:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <SCUgJ.86381$831.51123@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #33553 |
On 2021-11-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 03/11/2021 19:58, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> For sure, both of those speak to deep rooted truths about human
>> nature - sad really. Just wait till we get sentient robots and
>> reinvent slavery.
>
> We never lost slavery. We just use poverty and debt, not chains.
Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men.
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.
And as through your live you travel,
Yes, as through your life you roam,
You won't never see an outlaw
Drive a family from their home.
-- Woody Guthrie: Pretty Boy Floyd
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful -
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web