Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159338

Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS?

From	Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Newsgroups	alt.folklore.computers
Subject	Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS?
Date	2016-02-14 10:49 +0100
Organization	Me, Myself and I
Message-ID	<m5v5pc-iua.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> (permalink)
References	<n9n71i$j1f$1@dont-email.me> <n9nobn$kl0$1@dont-email.me> <1217079919.477102404.056131.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> <diau2sF8tu9U1@mid.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

In article <diau2sF8tu9U1@mid.individual.net>,
Huge  <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
>On 2016-02-14, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:o914pc-pd3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>>> 
>>> You seem to have been brain-washed or conditioned by the world of bloat,
>>> whereas I was brought up on 16-bit minicomputers (PDP11) with memory
>>> of 56K, so I know how much can be achieved in a small space.
>>
>> Hah!  I was brought up on a 32K 360/30, and I imagine many here would think
>> that was extragavant.
>
>[100 lines snipped]
>
>Oh, the irony.        :o)

I am not at all convinced by you calling everything bigger than 64k
for "bloat". We have seen a functionality explosion in the 4 decades 
since pdp11s were the hottest stuff around (and they were).

I grew up on small systems too. The Commodore PET with 32k RAM
was one I got to know intimately. I was too late for the pdp11, but
got to see the micro revolution up close.

I also saw the beauty of the DEC20 at my college, where I started
using emacs Jan 17th 1979.

The PET had an 8k OS in ROM, and 8k Basic interpreter. The DEC20
had a ~2megabyte OS. The difference in functions was very clear.
We drooled about the dec20, but we worked with the PET. I even built
memory extensions for it.

Current machines have gigabytes of memory, and terabytes of disk.
The classic systems have grown, but not to those sizes. The bloat
is extreme in the browsers, however. And the spreadsheets, wordprocessors, 
and packages. The "old code", later versions of X, window managers, 
shells, editors, etc. has grown, but not by that much.

I will not call the Linux kernel bloat. 40 megabytes on a 2G machine, 
where around 1/3rd are buffers sized according to the memory size, 
and around half of the remaining are drivers; nearly 7k for around 20k
different devices. There are around 35 subsystems like usb, sata etc; 
and 15 file systems. Call this diversity explosion bloat if you like, 
but don't complain when you lose USB. (which are 4 different ones, 
1.0, 1.2, 2.0 and 3.0; actually). or SATA. Or SCSI. I know people
who has pruned the Linux kernel down below 10m, but then you have
to shed lots of functions.

If I total up the kernel, shell, small servers plus X plus xfce4
I get to around 12-14% of the memory of this, today quite small, laptop.

This is a functionality explosion, which I am all for. I plug in 
USB devices and have programs started automatically; I enter wifi
zones and log on automatically. And lots of such stuff.

Emacs still use around 8 megabytes. Libreoffice easily use 100 times
that. I don't get 100 times the functionality, rather the contrary.

THAT is bloat.

Yes, you can dream of the PDP11, I can dream of the PET. I still have
the C64 I got as a present for some PET designs. It has heavy hardware
mods. In those days we had to work with the hardware to get some
things done. This is a lot rarer now. I still fire it up for a play
of forest. Noone ever matched that one.

I still work with small stuff. I just got going with the arduino, which
is a very nice piece of hardware. But not as a laptop/desktop. I plan
to deploy a few hundred of them holding sensors to get full 3rdparty
monitoring of a new datacentre. I will have to hack some hardware.
(adding ethernet to all of them, and hooking up sensors)

This is a different ballgame from the desktop. 

I have a few scores of raspberrypis and similar machines. They can
barely make do as a desktop. Until you fire up some of the bloatware.

I got the post that a browser is more complicated than USB. But the
code size is 224 times bigger. WTF? (usb part of linux kernel vs
chromium, measured by wc -l on the source tree).

It isn't bloat because it is bigger than 64k. 

-- mrr

Thread

64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-13 12:22 +0000
  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-02-13 07:29 -0600
  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 07:43 -0700
  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 17:13 +0100
    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-13 17:18 +0000
      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-13 18:29 +0100
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 17:31 -0700
      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 23:51 +0100
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 15:52 -0800
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 17:31 -0700
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-13 20:51 -0600
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-13 22:19 -0500
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-14 15:19 +0000
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-14 11:51 -0500
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-15 18:00 -0600
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 13:09 -0600
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-15 17:58 -0600
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-16 09:00 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 10:42 -0500
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? mrr@sambook.reistad.name (Morten Reistad) - 2016-02-14 21:36 +0100
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-13 20:54 -0600
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-14 07:47 +0000
      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 17:31 -0700
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-14 01:01 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-15 18:04 -0600
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 18:20 -0800
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:48 -0800
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-16 09:32 -0500
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-16 15:58 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 18:04 +0100
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 10:03 -0800
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:09 +1100
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-19 06:34 -0800
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-16 15:14 -0600
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:49 -0800
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-14 07:49 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 19:20 +1100
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-14 14:47 +0000
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-15 14:10 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:40 -0800
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 06:56 -0700
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-17 20:56 -0800
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:48 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 11:55 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 11:51 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-19 09:47 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 06:54 -0700
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-19 06:36 -0800
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 15:13 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-19 19:48 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:39 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:38 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-20 09:47 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:35 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-20 11:12 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 07:30 -0700
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 09:37 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:46 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:22 +1100
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-20 23:02 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:02 +1100
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-20 12:34 -0800
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:35 -0800
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 09:01 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 10:49 +0100
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 16:24 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-14 15:19 +0000
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 10:45 -0500
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-15 21:27 +0000
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-15 23:50 -0500
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 00:40 +0100
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 09:58 -0800
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-16 13:54 -0500
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 06:56 -0700
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:05 +1100
    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-14 00:53 +0000
    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 16:11 +0000
      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-16 17:04 +0000
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-16 17:44 +0000
  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 08:47 -0800

csiph-web