Yeah, well, one day some kid is gonna be appalled that my beloved pentium 4 couldn't even read my thoughts, like we've been doing that for ages, even. Like since I was born. AND it was bigger than a matchbox, how did we ever carry them around in the high gravity of Jupiter?
But yes, I am glad. Samuel -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Bertram Sent: Thursday, September 16 2004 1:15 p.m. To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Offtopic List Subject: RE: [DUG-Offtopic] Intel Evolution You really don't want to hear about the days of card punches or (god forbid) hand punched cards ....... Just be glad you are the younger generation. Stephen -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Allan, Samuel Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2004 1:07 p.m. To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Offtopic List Subject: RE: [DUG-Offtopic] Intel Evolution And ironically, that old codger is you :-) I vaguely remember one of my friends had a computer that you had to type commands into, because it didn't have a mouse, would you believe! -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Sugrue Sent: Thursday, September 16 2004 12:50 p.m. To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Offtopic List Subject: RE: [DUG-Offtopic] Intel Evolution Ohh geez now you've got them started. Some old codger will relive the good old days, programming COBOL on a main frame or something. Only kidding. (I only stretch back as far as MS-DOS 5.0 and 386's that I learned to program on when I was a kid.) On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 11:54, Stephen Barker wrote: > Yes, > > I recall we used to upgrade IBM XT's and clones from the 8088 chip at > 4.77mHz to the NEC V20 running at 8mHz. > > We also used a TurboDos system and each card/user had a Z80 (B from > memory) with a massive 128k ram. Actually it was 2 pages of 64k each > with DOS in one and the other remaining 63k (1 k used by the page > swapping code) available for programs - a big improvement on the usual > 48k pc's. > > dBase III could only use 48k and internally only 1.5k for > variables which was rather limiting, and only 2 tables open at a time. > I wrote some assembler code that could be called from dBase that poked > data above the 48k ceiling, effectively giving me an extra 15k for > array data. > > Those were the days - not. > > Steve _______________________________________________ Offtopic mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/offtopic _______________________________________________ Offtopic mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/offtopic Disclaimer : This communication contains information that is confidential and the copyright of ensynergy Limited or a third party. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please delete and destroy all copies and telephone ensynergy Limited on +64 9 3551591 immediately. If you are the intended recipient of this communication you should not copy, disclose or distribute this communication without the authority of ensynergy Limited. Any views expressed in this communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of ensynergy Limited. Except as required by law, ensynergy Limited does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. _______________________________________________ Offtopic mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/offtopic _______________________________________________ Offtopic mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/offtopic
