Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
> Well, I don't know. By the time the Cyber 18 came out, it was a 120 VAC > powered unit that a strongish person could lift off the floor (about 90 > lbs)--and functionally pretty much the same machine as the original > 1700, just implemented with more advanced technology. 1774 was from about 1967, and basically a six foot rack. 1784 was from about 1974, and about the same volume as a PDP-8/e. I think the Wiki article may be wrong about the date of the original 1700 systems (1704) being mid-1966. That seems late. When I get back home, I might look at the chunks I have to see if I can get date codes. > If that's not a minicomputer, I don't know what is. Wasn't minicomputer really a marketing term, anyway? Suits and all? -- Will
Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
> Could someone with access to the OED please check up the first use of the > term "minicomputer" > I strongly suspect it was around the time that the PDP11/20 came out or > slightly later. Ngram shows the first real use about 1967, with a peak about 1983. -- Will
Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
On 05/04/2016 10:10 PM, Curious Marc wrote: > For the fun of the argument: I was privileged enough to see Carl's > IBM 1130, and to my newbie eye, it may justifiably earn the title of > "small" computer, when compared to its brethren of the time. But it > would never occur to me to call it a mini! It's quite a biggie > computer actually. Heavy stuff, forklift or winch needed to put it > safely in the truck as I recall. Then I thought our IBM 1401 was big. > That's when more knowledgeable people pointed me to the IBM 7090. Now > that's *really* big. And then you have SAGE. Now that's huge. Or > insane, depending on your engineering point of view :-). On the other hand, the PB250 was contained in a single 5' rack (table model), ran off of a single 15A 120V circuit and weighed a bit over 100 lbs. I'd call it a minicomputer if it weren't for the fact that it was brought out around 1961. 22 bit words. Up to about 16KW in the box; magnetostrictive delay line memory, bit-serial ALU. IIRC, lotsa diodes, but comparatively few (ca. 300-400) transistors. --Chuck
RE: Facit 4070 to PC interface
> Has anyone ever worked up a PC parallel port to Facit 4070 paper tape > punch interface? Are you talking about a modern USB-parallel cable type interface or the original PC parallel interface where you could individually control all the lines? > I found one on a Swedish website. The punch parallel input looks like > it is TTL compatible, but I can't find anything in the documentation > that describes the input voltage specifications. There are at least 3 versions of the 4070 main board. The earliest (and in my experience most common) one uses DTL running at 6V. Later ones are TTL. However in all cases I've had no problems directly connected TTL signals to the 4070. No idea what modern 'TTL compatible' (but not real TTL) would do. -tony
Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
For the fun of the argument: I was privileged enough to see Carl's IBM 1130, and to my newbie eye, it may justifiably earn the title of "small" computer, when compared to its brethren of the time. But it would never occur to me to call it a mini! It's quite a biggie computer actually. Heavy stuff, forklift or winch needed to put it safely in the truck as I recall. Then I thought our IBM 1401 was big. That's when more knowledgeable people pointed me to the IBM 7090. Now that's *really* big. And then you have SAGE. Now that's huge. Or insane, depending on your engineering point of view :-). Marc Sent from my iPad > On May 4, 2016, at 8:24 PM, ANDY HOLT wrote: > > Could someone with access to the OED please check up the first use of the > term "minicomputer" > I strongly suspect it was around the time that the PDP11/20 came out or > slightly later. > The IBM 1130 and 1800 were comparable to the /original/ CDC 1700, were > similarly launched in the mid 60s, > but similarly they were not /at that time/ referred to as minis. > > In retrospect we might well call these minicomputers but that is not the > question as stated. > > - Original Message - > From: "Chuck Guzis" > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" > Sent: Thursday, 5 May, 2016 3:33:03 AM > Subject: Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)? > >> On 05/04/2016 05:07 PM, ANDY HOLT wrote: >> >>> Is the CDC 1700 considered to be in the family of "minicomputers"? >>> (i.e. was the word invented before then?). >> >> Though functionally it sort of had the minicomputer nature, it was >> physically a bit large for that term … would have been called a >> "process control" computer. I also don't think I heard the word >> "minicomputer" until a couple of years after I first saw a CDC 1700. > > Well, I don't know. By the time the Cyber 18 came out, it was a 120 VAC > powered unit that a strongish person could lift off the floor (about 90 > lbs)--and functionally pretty much the same machine as the original > 1700, just implemented with more advanced technology. > > If that's not a minicomputer, I don't know what is. > > We used them as data concentrators hooked to leased lines, card readers > and punches and various other peripherals. > > If the 1700 isn't a minicomputer, you'll have to correct the Wikipedia > article. > > --Chuck >
Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
On 05/04/2016 08:24 PM, ANDY HOLT wrote: > Could someone with access to the OED please check up the first use of > the term "minicomputer" I strongly suspect it was around the time > that the PDP11/20 came out or slightly later. The IBM 1130 and 1800 > were comparable to the /original/ CDC 1700, were similarly launched > in the mid 60s, but similarly they were not /at that time/ referred > to as minis. Merriam Webster and the OED gives the first published use in 1967 http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/site/comments/1967_words/ The 1700 would fit into that in at least one of its incarnations. The 160A would not, as it went out of production in 1965, for example. Sometimes words can be misleading. The word "microcomputer" when initially used, did not mean what we think of today--that of a certain level of integration of an IC that includes most of the component parts of a computer. AES used this same term much earlier for "a computer than can be microprogrammed" as implemented in a cage of of cards. --Chuck
Re: Facit 4070 to PC interface
On 5/4/2016 5:52 PM, Charles Dickman wrote: Has anyone ever worked up a PC parallel port to Facit 4070 paper tape punch interface? I found one on a Swedish website. The punch parallel input looks like it is TTL compatible, but I can't find anything in the documentation that describes the input voltage specifications. Chuck Check this link out: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~pmaydell/misc/cardpunch/dongle.htm It shows how to build a PC to 4070 interface. Basically inverting a few signals. Bob -- Vintage computers and electronics www.dvq.com www.tekmuseum.com www.decmuseum.org
Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
Could someone with access to the OED please check up the first use of the term "minicomputer" I strongly suspect it was around the time that the PDP11/20 came out or slightly later. The IBM 1130 and 1800 were comparable to the /original/ CDC 1700, were similarly launched in the mid 60s, but similarly they were not /at that time/ referred to as minis. In retrospect we might well call these minicomputers but that is not the question as stated. - Original Message - From: "Chuck Guzis" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Thursday, 5 May, 2016 3:33:03 AM Subject: Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)? On 05/04/2016 05:07 PM, ANDY HOLT wrote: > >> Is the CDC 1700 considered to be in the family of "minicomputers"? >> (i.e. was the word invented before then?). > > Though functionally it sort of had the minicomputer nature, it was > physically a bit large for that term … would have been called a > "process control" computer. I also don't think I heard the word > "minicomputer" until a couple of years after I first saw a CDC 1700. Well, I don't know. By the time the Cyber 18 came out, it was a 120 VAC powered unit that a strongish person could lift off the floor (about 90 lbs)--and functionally pretty much the same machine as the original 1700, just implemented with more advanced technology. If that's not a minicomputer, I don't know what is. We used them as data concentrators hooked to leased lines, card readers and punches and various other peripherals. If the 1700 isn't a minicomputer, you'll have to correct the Wikipedia article. --Chuck
Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
On 05/04/2016 05:07 PM, ANDY HOLT wrote: > >> Is the CDC 1700 considered to be in the family of "minicomputers"? >> (i.e. was the word invented before then?). > > Though functionally it sort of had the minicomputer nature, it was > physically a bit large for that term … would have been called a > "process control" computer. I also don't think I heard the word > "minicomputer" until a couple of years after I first saw a CDC 1700. Well, I don't know. By the time the Cyber 18 came out, it was a 120 VAC powered unit that a strongish person could lift off the floor (about 90 lbs)--and functionally pretty much the same machine as the original 1700, just implemented with more advanced technology. If that's not a minicomputer, I don't know what is. We used them as data concentrators hooked to leased lines, card readers and punches and various other peripherals. If the 1700 isn't a minicomputer, you'll have to correct the Wikipedia article. --Chuck
Crippled connectivity [was Re: FidoNet ....show [was: History [was Re: strangest systems I've sent email...]
>> There are services like http://www.noip.com/free where you can get a >> DNS entry for dynamically changing IP addresses. This way you can >> run a BBS without having to buy a business class account. > Yeah... unless I am behind a NAT - and I believe I am behind at least > two, of which at least one is out of my control, hence no making > holes (or tunnels). Sure you can tunnel; you just have to initiate the tunnel connection from the inside. I too have a host (at work) that's behind double NAT; it initiates and maintains a tunnel connection to an external host, and voila! my external hosts can reach the internal host. Not as good as native connectivity, but it works "well enough". (Yes, work knows about it. They don't mind.) Of course, this needs a friendly host on the outside. In my case, I find that cost well worth paying /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTMLmo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Re: Facit 4070 to PC interface
Most punches with a parallel input can be cross wired to a parallel port. If the strobe is upside down, you can use one of the other signals. Many punches have a jumper for the strobe polarity. Dwight From: cctalk on behalf of Charles Dickman Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 5:52:29 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Facit 4070 to PC interface Has anyone ever worked up a PC parallel port to Facit 4070 paper tape punch interface? I found one on a Swedish website. The punch parallel input looks like it is TTL compatible, but I can't find anything in the documentation that describes the input voltage specifications. Chuck
Facit 4070 to PC interface
Has anyone ever worked up a PC parallel port to Facit 4070 paper tape punch interface? I found one on a Swedish website. The punch parallel input looks like it is TTL compatible, but I can't find anything in the documentation that describes the input voltage specifications. Chuck
Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
> Is the CDC 1700 considered to be in the family of "minicomputers"? > (i.e. was the word invented before then?). Though functionally it sort of had the minicomputer nature, it was physically a bit large for that term … would have been called a "process control" computer. I also don't think I heard the word "minicomputer" until a couple of years after I first saw a CDC 1700.
Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
In the not mini but very maxi category, I just learned that IBM implemented memory protection as an RPQ (customer feature) at the request of the MIT folks that built the first IBM time sharing system (CTSS, the predecessor of Multics), on their IBM 7094. Around 1963, unless it was already implemented in the IBM 7090 which would have been 1961. At least that's my cursory understanding of it from www.multicians.org/thvv/7094.html . I was very surprised it was that early! Marc Sent from my iPad > On May 4, 2016, at 3:02 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > > Is the CDC 1700 considered to be in the family of "minicomputers"? > (i.e. was the word invented before then?). > > If so, the 1700 had a rather elaborate system of memory and peripheral > protection. Circa 1965 (at least that's the date on my manual). > > --Chuck >
Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
> Marc wrote... > - > My 1974 HP 21MX, descendant of the HP 2100A, sure inherited this Memory > Protect card. One register that you load, prevents access to any memory below > the address of the register. > > That's just the fence register (memory access interception) capability. > There's also the I/O & HLT instruction interception, interrupt interception, > etc. mentioned earlier. [...] > J Yes, I didn't know it was more comprehensive. I just learned it from this thread! Is this a good message board or what... Marc
Re: Firming up rubber? (was: Cleaning rubber goo)
On Wed, 4 May 2016, Swift Griggs wrote: > > Don?t know the cost either, might be way over the top for a joystick! > > Another solution I heard was to wipe with isopropyl alcohol or > > goo-be-gone, but common sense tells me it?s > > Heh, there are guys who do their Ph.D on stuff like this (materials > science). The main thing I would say (and sorry if it sounds trite) is > that you want to make sure you use polar solvents and non-polar solvents > (ie.. water or oil based) on the appropriate material. So, if it's an oil > based adhesive, use a non-polar solvent like lighter fluid etc.. The > problem with this is that (as others have said) it's very tough to know if > the solvent will break down the rubber, too. You gotta test it. That's the rule of thumb, but as usually there are exceptions. For example water and cyclohexane are strictly polar and non-polar respectively, but ethanol and IPA are a bit of both, owing to their molecules' structure (IPA's also highly hygroscopic). Depending on the intended use this may be an advantage or disadvantage, and that of course also means you need to research any solvent before use, by either studying available data or empirically. Maciej
Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
Is the CDC 1700 considered to be in the family of "minicomputers"? (i.e. was the word invented before then?). If so, the 1700 had a rather elaborate system of memory and peripheral protection. Circa 1965 (at least that's the date on my manual). --Chuck
Re: FidoNet ....show [was: History [was Re: strangest systems I've sent email...
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 06:09:00AM -0700, geneb wrote: > On Wed, 4 May 2016, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > >Now I even started to think, very shyly, how nice would it have been [...] > >can sell me "business" service. Ugh. This is tempting but I am > >strong. :-) > > > There are services like http://www.noip.com/free where you can get a > DNS entry for dynamically changing IP addresses. This way you can > run a BBS without having to buy a business class account. Yeah... unless I am behind a NAT - and I believe I am behind at least two, of which at least one is out of my control, hence no making holes (or tunnels). So if I wanted to host it at home, I would have to buy business account. And build me some "infrastructure". At the moment, time is a limited resource and I have to spent it wisely. > You could even bring up an AWS instance for about $5 a month, which > is great for doing BBS work. :) Hehe, trying to lure me? See, maybe I would went for it when world and I were a bit younger. Nowadays... I believe a so called "provider" is responsible for what he provides, even if he did not do anything himself. So I would have to be on a permament watch, catching probabilistic but maybe just imagined guys who would like to pee into my morning tea for fun or (their own) profit. Or rather, please themselves without any regard for my morning tea or me. Looking from such angle, I guess it is much easier to do just small personal type of a project, read-only static pages etc. We will see. A project or two later, few unread books later, we will see. Well I am not sure what we will see, but just seeing is great thing to do, too :-). -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
Re: Firming up rubber? (was: Cleaning rubber goo)
On Wed, 4 May 2016, Curious Marc wrote: > Well I currently have that problem with fancy cars of Italian origins, > and knowledgeable people told me the real solution is to take the parts > out and send them to: stickynomore.com (yes, their real name) That's neat. I wish I had that problem (fancy cars of Italian origins). :-) > Don?t know the cost either, might be way over the top for a joystick! > Another solution I heard was to wipe with isopropyl alcohol or > goo-be-gone, but common sense tells me it?s Heh, there are guys who do their Ph.D on stuff like this (materials science). The main thing I would say (and sorry if it sounds trite) is that you want to make sure you use polar solvents and non-polar solvents (ie.. water or oil based) on the appropriate material. So, if it's an oil based adhesive, use a non-polar solvent like lighter fluid etc.. The problem with this is that (as others have said) it's very tough to know if the solvent will break down the rubber, too. You gotta test it. Just FYI, there is another possibility. Since you are a geek, you probably either have a 3D printer or know someone who does. If the part has a simple shape you can measure, grab a free copy of google sketchup (or whatever your favorite CAD program is) and model it. Then you can give the drawing to your friend had have him print the part(s) you need. If you are like me, and you have few friends, then you can use an online service like i.Materialize or Shapeways and have them print it. The key is to use a filament base that has the same dynamics as the part you are replacing. Some market-droid talk from a filament maker about rubber materials: " With Rubber-like PolyJet photopolymers, you can simulate rubber with different levels of hardness, elongation and tear resistance. " Thus, if it's not too crazy-complex of a part, you could probably do it for not-much-more money than what it'd cost to buy some kind of reconditioning solvents. If it *is* a complex part, you might consider doing a 3D scan first (again you can use a service) and then working off the that model. It's just a random idea that could help. -Swift
Re: tsx-plus wikipedia article
On Wednesday (05/04/2016 at 02:13PM -0500), Jay West wrote: > > 4) They say the latest version of TSX-Plus has TCP/IP support. That's > not true, at least not built in. There was a TCP/IP stack done by a 3rd > party (actually, think it was a person that ported one and put it in a > public contributed library) but that wasn't "included" by S&H. I can't comment on what was included by S&H or not but I do remember coming across this TCP/IP package for TSX-PLUS years ago, http://shop-pdp.net/tshtml/tcpip.htm This may be one of the 3rd party ones you are referring to. Chris -- Chris Elmquist
RE: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
Marc wrote... - My 1974 HP 21MX, descendant of the HP 2100A, sure inherited this Memory Protect card. One register that you load, prevents access to any memory below the address of the register. That's just the fence register (memory access interception) capability. There's also the I/O & HLT instruction interception, interrupt interception, etc. mentioned earlier. M.E.M. was standard option (ie. Included) with most E/F machines. I don't know if the 2114/5/6 had the same capabilities in the fence area J
RE: strangest systems I've sent email from
From: Sean Conner Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 12:00 PM > It was thus said that the Great Liam Proven once stated: >> The way LispMs worked, AIUI, is that the machine language wasn't Lisp, >> it was something far simpler, but designed to map onto Lisp concepts. > The Lisp machines had tagged memory to help with the garbage collection > and avoid wasting tons of memory. Yeah, it also had CPU instructions like > CAR and CDR (even the IBM 704 had those [4]). > [4] It's a joke. Look it up. Of course it's a joke. LISP had CAR and CDR because of the 704, along with CTR and CPR! (OK, tags and prefixes got dropped in later implementations on later hardware.) Rich Rich Alderson Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer Living Computer Museum 2245 1st Avenue S Seattle, WA 98134 mailto:ri...@livingcomputermuseum.org http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
Re: Firming up rubber? (was: Cleaning rubber goo)
On a similar note, does any have a solution to firm up rubber that is just starting to gooify? These days, it is hard to find "Ubik".
Re: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
My 1974 HP 21MX, descendant of the HP 2100A, sure inherited this Memory Protect card. One register that you load, prevents access to any memory below the address of the register. Marc From: cctalk on behalf of Gottfried Specht Reply-To: "cctalk@classiccmp.org" Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 9:18 AM To: "cctalk@classiccmp.org" Subject: AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)? Erik, I'm not sure whether it qualifies for your full list, but the HP2100A (that came out in 1971) had a "Memory Protect" hardware that "Gives the security necessary to protect a defined area of memory from alteration by a user program. Priority: Second highest priority interrupt (shared with memory parity). Operation: Initiated under program control; protects any amount of memory. Fence Register: Set under program control; memory below fence is protected. Interrupt: To trap cell for system routine when user program: a) Attempts to alter a protected location b) Attempts to jump into the protected area c) Attempts to execute an 1/0 instruction Violation Register: Contains memory address of violating instruction." (from the 1972 HP2100A Processor Description) The predecessor HP2116B (of 1968 vintage!) also had a "Memory Protect" board as an option, I cannot confirm it had the same functionality as the HP2100A above. IIRC, this was the main mechanism to protect the OS (RTE, DOS) from user code. Gottfried
Re: Firming up rubber? (was: Cleaning rubber goo)
Well I currently have that problem with fancy cars of Italian origins, and knowledgeable people told me the real solution is to take the parts out and send them to: stickynomore.com (yes, their real name) Parts get returned in two weeks, look like new and never get sticky again. At least that’s what I am told, and everyone in the business seem to agree. Haven’t tried it yet. Don’t know the cost either, might be way over the top for a joystick! Another solution I heard was to wipe with isopropyl alcohol or goo-be-gone, but common sense tells me it’s just going to dissolve the top layer and your problem might reappear. Haven’t tried it either. Darn rubber parts. Marc From: cctalk on behalf of tim lindner Reply-To: "cctalk@classiccmp.org" Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 10:44 AM To: "cctalk@classiccmp.org" Subject: Firming up rubber? (was: Cleaning rubber goo) On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Mike Stein wrote: What's the best commonly available solvent for cleaning the rubber goo that used to be pressure rollers, belts, feet etc.? On a similar note, does any have a solution to firm up rubber that is just starting to gooify? I have some joystick feet that are just starting to get sticky. -- -- tim lindner "Proper User Policy apparently means Simon Says."
Re: tsx-plus wikipedia article
On Jay West vs Wikipedia, always bet your money on Jay West Wikipedia is an amateur effort, with some serious attempts to try to reduce the errors. On Wed, 4 May 2016, Paul Koning wrote: If you see an error in Wikipedia, the friendly answer is to fix the error, not to grumble about it on mailing lists. Ah, but Jay was responsible enough to ask his peers for confirmation before he asserted his information. I made a few corrections a while back about the history of the West Coast Computer Faire, including the dates of some of the shows that occurred after the stated ending date, and deleting the statement that said that WCCF BECAME Comdex.
Re: Steve Dompier's coding...
Reminds me of a challenge I had in the early 80's The place I worked made IC test and evaluation systems, starting price in 1980 was around $300K and many where close to $1.5 million. This one was for IBM. They were designing a 288K bit ram and one thing they wanted was to be able to 'see' failed bits as parameters such as supply voltage were changed. If you looked at the die it was 9 'squares' of i think 128 x 256 ( i think that was the size) cell or bits. The 9 th was for parity. The memory was read by the system and a 0 or 1 was stored in a buffer in the system. The system was run by a PDP11/44 the display was a Tektronix GMA125 with option 42/43. The GMA 125 was the OEM display used in the 4116, a 25" DVST terminal. Option 42/43 was feed from a DR11. The 42/43 could be driven in Tek 401x format (that's the same you still see today when you put your X11 display into Tek mode) which had a point plotting set of commands. So one had to read in a loop this external memory which came back in some long forgotten 16 bits per something mode, calculate the position of the 'bit' which was in memory block x and position x and y in each block and either display a dot or plus or something at the respective location on the CRT. Doing it all in some time IBM wanted it done in .. loops within loops within loops and finally a test for 1 or 0 and out the DR11W. The only way I could get the code to meet IBM speed requirement was to do the unthinkable. Upon start the inner most work that was test for 'display if zero' or display if one' was modified to be branch of true or branch if false. Sometimes you just have to violate all the rules. Other fun things were using shifting bits and using indexing for some of the coordinate translations. oh well when every instruction time made a difference. it was challenging but fun -pete On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bill Sudbrink wrote: > I took a peek at the access logs for the Cromemco Dazzler > files that I recently put up on my web server. I'm > gratified to see that a lot of people are taking advantage > of the availability of these documents, that have not > recently (if ever) been easily available on the web. I > also see that a lot of people took the Dazzlemation HEX > file and the Magenta Martini paper tape image, presumably > to run on Udo Monk's great Windows Cromemco Z1 simulator. > > Also, thanks to everyone that generated pdf files for me! > > One thing I noticed is that not many people looked at the > disassembly of Dazzlemation. If you are an 8080 or Z80 > programmer (or any 8-bitter for that matter) I really > recommend that you take a look, it's a real treat. I'm > reliably informed that Mr. Dompier hand wrote that program > LITERALLY (hand, pencil, paper), no editor, no assembler. > He then toggled it in (or maybe raw keyed it in with a > primitive ROM monitor) and went through a few iterations of: > > 1) store to paper tape > 2) modify in memory > 3) test > 4) go to 1 > > It's neat to see some of the "tricks" he used and also the > level of sophistication of the code. It does a lot of > stuff in not a lot of bytes. Also, here and there, in > "dead" areas, you can also see the debris of ideas that he > started and then abandoned. > > Bill S. > > >
Re: tsx-plus wikipedia article
> On May 4, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > > On Wed, 4 May 2016, Jason Scott wrote: >> On Jay West vs Wikipedia, always bet your money on Jay West > > Wikipedia is an amateur effort, with some serious attempts to try to reduce > the errors. If you see an error in Wikipedia, the friendly answer is to fix the error, not to grumble about it on mailing lists. paul
Re: tsx-plus wikipedia article
On Wed, 4 May 2016, Jason Scott wrote: On Jay West vs Wikipedia, always bet your money on Jay West Wikipedia is an amateur effort, with some serious attempts to try to reduce the errors. It is almost inevitable that somebody will declare something to have been included if THEY had it, not even necessarily being aware that they had a third party add-on. User limits are assumed and often not correct. In the other direction, 30 years ago the college got a network system for PCs that "can handle hundreds of users". I have no idea what the theoretical limit was (number of bits in node numbers?) but we were the first to ever attempt 32, at which point it took nothing to bring it to its knees. On May 4, 2016 15:13, "Jay West" wrote: I was skimming the Wikipedia article for tsx-plus, some of it seemed off to me. Anyone know the facts for sure? 1) They suggest tsxplus generally didn't support more than 8 users well. At my high school, we had 16 users on it constantly and it seemed to perform very well. Anyone have experience along those lines? 2) They say LEX-11 (wordprocessing) was included. I don't believe so. 3) They say a spreadsheet program from Saturn Software was included. I don't think so. Saturn had a wordprocessor, but it was a chargeable product and I don't think S&H distributed it. 4) They say the latest version of TSX-Plus has TCP/IP support. That's not true, at least not built in. There was a TCP/IP stack done by a 3rd party (actually, think it was a person that ported one and put it in a public contributed library) but that wasn't "included" by S&H. Do I have those things wrong?
Re: tsx-plus wikipedia article
On Jay West vs Wikipedia, always bet your money on Jay West On May 4, 2016 15:13, "Jay West" wrote: > I was skimming the Wikipedia article for tsx-plus, some of it seemed off to > me. Anyone know the facts for sure? > > > > 1) They suggest tsxplus generally didn't support more than 8 users > well. At my high school, we had 16 users on it constantly and it seemed to > perform very well. Anyone have experience along those lines? > > 2) They say LEX-11 (wordprocessing) was included. I don't believe so. > > 3) They say a spreadsheet program from Saturn Software was included. I > don't think so. Saturn had a wordprocessor, but it was a chargeable product > and I don't think S&H distributed it. > > 4) They say the latest version of TSX-Plus has TCP/IP support. That's > not true, at least not built in. There was a TCP/IP stack done by a 3rd > party (actually, think it was a person that ported one and put it in a > public contributed library) but that wasn't "included" by S&H. > > > > Do I have those things wrong? > > > > J > >
tsx-plus wikipedia article
I was skimming the Wikipedia article for tsx-plus, some of it seemed off to me. Anyone know the facts for sure? 1) They suggest tsxplus generally didn't support more than 8 users well. At my high school, we had 16 users on it constantly and it seemed to perform very well. Anyone have experience along those lines? 2) They say LEX-11 (wordprocessing) was included. I don't believe so. 3) They say a spreadsheet program from Saturn Software was included. I don't think so. Saturn had a wordprocessor, but it was a chargeable product and I don't think S&H distributed it. 4) They say the latest version of TSX-Plus has TCP/IP support. That's not true, at least not built in. There was a TCP/IP stack done by a 3rd party (actually, think it was a person that ported one and put it in a public contributed library) but that wasn't "included" by S&H. Do I have those things wrong? J
Re: strangest systems I've sent email from
It was thus said that the Great Liam Proven once stated: > On 29 April 2016 at 21:06, Sean Conner wrote: > > It was thus said that the Great Liam Proven once stated: > > > I read that and it doesn't really seem that CAOS would have been much > > better than what actually came out. Okay, the potentially better resource > > tracking would be nice, but that's about it really. > > The story of ARX, the unfinished Acorn OS in Modula-2 for the > then-prototype Archimedes, is similar. > > No, it probably wouldn't have been all that radical. > > I wonder how much of Amiga OS' famed performance, compactness, etc. > was a direct result of its adaptation to the MMU-less 68000, and thus > could never have been implemented in a way that could have been made > more robust on later chips such as the 68030? Part of that was the MMU-less 68000. It certainly made message passing cheap (since you could just send a pointer and avoid copying the message) but QNX shows that even with copying, you can still have a fast operating system [1]. I think what made the Amiga so fast (even with a 7.1MHz CPU) was the specialized hardware. You pretty much used the MC68000 to script the hardware. > > I spent some hours on the Urbit site. Between the obscure writing, > > entirely new jargon and the "we're going to change the world" attitude, > > it very much feels like the Xanadu Project. > > I am not sure I'm the person to try to summarise it. > > I've nicked my own effort from my tech blog: > > I've not tried Urbit. (Yet.) > > But my impression is this: > > It's not obfuscatory for the hell of it. It is, yes, but for a valid > reason: that he doesn't want to waste time explaining or supporting > it. It's hard because you need to be v v bright to fathom it; > obscurity is a user filter. Red flag #1. > He claims NOT to be a Lisp type, not to have known anything much about > the language or LispMs, & to have re-invented some of the underlying > ideas independently. I'm not sure I believe this. > > My view of it from a technical perspective is this. (This may sound > over-dramatic.) > > We are so mired in the C world that modern CPUs are essentially C > machines. The conceptual model of C, of essentially all compilers, OSes, > imperative languages, &c. is a flawed one -- it is too simple an > abstraction. Q.v. http://www.loper-os.org/?p=55 Ah yes, Stanislav. Yet anohther person who goes on and on about how bad things are and makes oblique references to a better way without ever going into detail and expecting everyone to read his mind (yes, I don't have a high opinion of him either). And you do realize that Stanislav does not think highly of Urbit (he considers Yarvin as being deluded [2]). > Instead of bytes & blocks of them, the basic unit is the list. > Operations are defined in terms of lists, not bytes. You define a few > very simple operations & that's all you need. Nice in theory. Glacial performance in practice. > The way LispMs worked, AIUI, is that the machine language wasn't Lisp, > it was something far simpler, but designed to map onto Lisp concepts. > > I have been told that modern CPU design & optimisations & so on map > really poorly onto this set of primitives. That LispM CPUs were stack > machines, but modern processors are register machines. I am not > competent to judge the truth of this. The Lisp machines had tagged memory to help with the garbage collection and avoid wasting tons of memory. Yeah, it also had CPU instructions like CAR and CDR (even the IBM 704 had those [4]). Even the VAX nad QUEUE instructions to add and remove items from a linked list. I think it's really the tagged memory that made the Lisp machines special. > If Yarvin's claims are to be believed, he has done 2 intertwined things: > > [1] Experimentally or theoretically worked out something akin to these > primitives. > [2] Found or worked out a way to map them onto modern CPUs. List comprehension I believe. > This is his "machine code". Something that is not directly connected > or associated with modern CPUs' machine languages. He has built > something OTHER but defined his own odd language to describe it & > implement it. He has DELIBERATELY made it unlike anything else so you > don't bring across preconceptions & mental impurities. You need to > start over. Eh. I see that, and raise you a purely functional (as in---pure functions, no data) implementation of FizzBuzz: https://codon.com/programming-with-nothing > But, as far as I can judge, the design is sane, clean, & I am taking > it that he has reasons for the weirdness. I don't think it's > gratuitous. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I think he's being intentionally obtuse to appear profound. > So what on a LispM was the machine language, in Urbit, is Nock. It's a > whole new machine language layer, placed on top of an existing OS > stack, so I'm not surprised if it's horrendously inefficient. > > Compare
Release Notes for version 6.5 of TSX-Plus...
I just received from S&H a PDF copy of the TSX 6.50 Release Notes - and Jay has posted it to the http://tsxplus.classiccmp.org website. Lots of interesting/helpful information for all you TSX-Plus buffs... Cheers, Lyle -- 73 AF6WS Bickley Consulting West Inc. http://bickleywest.com "Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
Steve Dompier's coding...
I took a peek at the access logs for the Cromemco Dazzler files that I recently put up on my web server. I'm gratified to see that a lot of people are taking advantage of the availability of these documents, that have not recently (if ever) been easily available on the web. I also see that a lot of people took the Dazzlemation HEX file and the Magenta Martini paper tape image, presumably to run on Udo Monk's great Windows Cromemco Z1 simulator. Also, thanks to everyone that generated pdf files for me! One thing I noticed is that not many people looked at the disassembly of Dazzlemation. If you are an 8080 or Z80 programmer (or any 8-bitter for that matter) I really recommend that you take a look, it's a real treat. I'm reliably informed that Mr. Dompier hand wrote that program LITERALLY (hand, pencil, paper), no editor, no assembler. He then toggled it in (or maybe raw keyed it in with a primitive ROM monitor) and went through a few iterations of: 1) store to paper tape 2) modify in memory 3) test 4) go to 1 It's neat to see some of the "tricks" he used and also the level of sophistication of the code. It does a lot of stuff in not a lot of bytes. Also, here and there, in "dead" areas, you can also see the debris of ideas that he started and then abandoned. Bill S.
AW: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)?
Erik, I'm not sure whether it qualifies for your full list, but the HP2100A (that came out in 1971) had a "Memory Protect" hardware that "Gives the security necessary to protect a defined area of memory from alteration by a user program. Priority: Second highest priority interrupt (shared with memory parity). Operation: Initiated under program control; protects any amount of memory. Fence Register: Set under program control; memory below fence is protected. Interrupt: To trap cell for system routine when user program: a) Attempts to alter a protected location b) Attempts to jump into the protected area c) Attempts to execute an 1/0 instruction Violation Register: Contains memory address of violating instruction." (from the 1972 HP2100A Processor Description) The predecessor HP2116B (of 1968 vintage!) also had a "Memory Protect" board as an option, I cannot confirm it had the same functionality as the HP2100A above. IIRC, this was the main mechanism to protect the OS (RTE, DOS) from user code. Gottfried _ Gottfried Specht | gottfr...@specht-online.com | +49 211 151695+49 151 2911 2915 -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] Im Auftrag von Erik Baigar Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Mai 2016 17:53 An: cctalk@classiccmp.org Betreff: When did Memory- and IO Protection Emerge (Esp. in Minis)? Dear Experts, during discussing the Rolms I came accross the following question: What was the first (Minicomputer) architecture which offered memory- and IO protection? I'd define the minimum requirements as: - Existence of a superuser mode (Rolm calls this Executive mode) - Existence of a user mode (With at least two users, Rolm offers 4) - In superuser mode, IO and memory protection for each user can be set up individually. - Any access violation is trapped and handeled by superuser code. - Of course commands for mode switching and setting up the memory and IO ranges must exist. I have got a real machine (Rolm 1602) having this implemented and dating from 1975. A document on this "Access Protection Module" as Rolm calls it also is dated 1975. It consists of a microcode module which realizes an extension of the 16 bit Nova instruction set and an additinoal CPU module, taking care of the new modes and supervising the IO- and memory accesses. My question is not regarding virtual memory memory, but regarding protection (IO and memory) to ensure capsulation of indivitual processes - not necessarily for multi user environments but e.g. for safety critical applications... Probably OS/2 in 1987 was one of the first home computer OSes to support memory protection (how about IO protection?), BSD on some Digital PDP-* was earlier (1977?) but still after the 1602. Any hints out there on other "Mini" architectures of that era having someting similar? Erik.
Re: Titlers, Switchers, Paintboxes, Paint Apps and Old Broadcast Equipment
Back in the early 90's I remember that many times I'd see a print advertisement for a Video Toaster or a new genlock card, they'd say things like "features you'd have to pay thousands for in a professional paintbox or titler!" I always wondered what they were talking about, since I'd never seen how broadcast was done back then (and still don't know). So, I'm really talking about the tech of the 80's (since that's what the marketing folks were referring to, I assume). Here's what I could find that I'm speculating were the "competition" of the time: I think this is one of the center companies of that world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chyron_Corporation I'm not a broadcast guy just a hobbyist but pay attention to lots of different tech stuff! A diver friend is a manager on a video production truck (top of the line type.) I've gotten to tour his current one and it was insane. I've never seen so much hardware in such a tight space (Full length trailer that slides it's entire length out to add 75% or more.) Early days was the Computer Eyes board for DOS PC. Then various windows capture systems. I've owned some PC video editing stuff like Matrox RT-2000 (sucked), and the Matrox Digisuite cards (found for sale online, soemone thought it was networking hardware but I recognized the ports.) Currently have Blackmagic ATEM Television Studio, which is very neat hardware and software. Haven't had a video toaster system... yet! -- Ethan O'Toole
Re: Rolm Computers: 1602, 1602A, 1602B, 1666, MSExx (was Data General Nova Star Trek)
Paul Koning wrote: > > > On May 3, 2016, at 5:07 PM, Pete Lancashire wrote: > > > > ... The system has been modified over time, with some types (e.g. > > carrier pigeon -B-) dropped > > But then where does that leave RFC 1149 compliant networks? > > paul > Up in the air would be my guess. Regards, Peter Coghlan.
Re: Rolm Computers: 1602, 1602A, 1602B, 1666, MSExx (was Data General Nova Star Trek)
> On May 3, 2016, at 5:07 PM, Pete Lancashire wrote: > > ... The system has been modified over time, with some types (e.g. > carrier pigeon -B-) dropped But then where does that leave RFC 1149 compliant networks? paul
Re: Ideas for running a VB4 application on modern hardware?
On 4 May 2016 at 15:32, geneb wrote: >> VMware Player is freeware, not FOSS, and there might be licensing issues. >> > Irrelevant. (EULAs have the same value as toilet paper and shoul be used > for the same purpose.) No, not really. Sadly. Anyway, it's irrelevant, as the OP has now clarified that he is running in a VMware ESX environment, so that would be the host. >> [c] Using the XP Mode VM, which is freely downloadable from MS, you do >> not need to install and customise it. >> > 64 bit host OS = 64 Bit XP Mode VM. (AFAIK) What? No, not even slightly true in any case whatsoever. XP Mode is a pre-installed VM image of XP Pro 32-bit, registered and activated against the virtual hardware of MS Virtual PC 2007. Since its entire purpose is to run XP apps which will not work on Win7 in a VM under Win7, it would be pointless if it was not the maximally-compatible standard 32-bit XP. -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
Re: Ideas for running a VB4 application on modern hardware?
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:32 AM, geneb wrote: > >> 64 bit host OS = 64 Bit XP Mode VM. (AFAIK) > I’m not sure offhand what the default is, but I have gotten around this problem running XP Mode on a Windows 7 x64 installation. So that XP Mode is definitely 32-bit. Cheers, m
Re: Ideas for running a VB4 application on modern hardware?
On Wed, 4 May 2016, Liam Proven wrote: On 3 May 2016 at 16:20, geneb wrote: The issue is that with 64 bit versions of windows, the 16 bit thunking layer isn't present. The simplest way to do this is to grab VMWare Player (free download) and then create a Win98 VM. Google can point to a number of downloadable, ready-to-run Win98SE VMs. VMware Player is freeware, not FOSS, and there might be licensing issues. Irrelevant. (EULAs have the same value as toilet paper and shoul be used for the same purpose.) [c] Using the XP Mode VM, which is freely downloadable from MS, you do not need to install and customise it. 64 bit host OS = 64 Bit XP Mode VM. (AFAIK) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
Re: Ideas for running a VB4 application on modern hardware?
I’m going to get a demonstration of this program in the next day or so. It _sounds_ like it’s just a program they use to remind two individuals what taxes are due for the various organizations the work for. If it’s really just a calendar, I am going to suggest moving that data into a new Exchange calendar that is available to anyone that needs it. That way, they’ll get reminders, they can schedule and unschedule things and we can boot this legacy application out the door.
Re: FidoNet ....show [was: History [was Re: strangest systems I've sent email...
On Wed, 4 May 2016, Tomasz Rola wrote: Now I even started to think, very shyly, how nice would it have been to posess even one real IP4 number and have one such thing on my router. It can run Linux (or so OpenWRT guys claim), so it can run gopherd too. Albeit I would rather have non-Linux on it. My dreams always have this complicated multistory property. Of course my cabletv can sell me "business" service. Ugh. This is tempting but I am strong. :-) There are services like http://www.noip.com/free where you can get a DNS entry for dynamically changing IP addresses. This way you can run a BBS without having to buy a business class account. You could even bring up an AWS instance for about $5 a month, which is great for doing BBS work. :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
Re: Programming language failings [was Re: strangest systems I've sent email from]
On 29 April 2016 at 22:23, Eric Smith wrote: > More than 95% of my work is in C, > because that's what my clients demand, so people are usually surprised > to hear my opinion that C is a terrible choice for almost anything. I am in an analogous boat. Most of my career has been based on Windows, either supporting it, working on it, writing about it or whatever. And yet, it is one of my least-favourite OSes. -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
Re: strangest systems I've sent email from
On 30 April 2016 at 06:36, Tapley, Mark wrote: > On Apr 28, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > >> I loved BeOS but never saw the Be Book. :-( > > Sorry if this is a duplicate, I’m behind on the list by a little. I think the > Be Book is effectively on-line at > > https://www.haiku-os.org/legacy-docs/bebook/ > > Haiku, open-source and “inspired by BeOS”, is pretty easy to install on a > virtual machine on VMWare or (reportedly) VirtualBox. I don’t know how > faithful it is to the original Be experience, but just in case you are > interested. Thanks! Yes, I've experimented with Haiku in VMs. But cheers for the link to the book -- I'll have a look. -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
Re: strangest systems I've sent email from
On 29 April 2016 at 21:06, Sean Conner wrote: > It was thus said that the Great Liam Proven once stated: >> >> Do you really think it's growing? I'd like very much to believe that. >> I see little sign of it. I do hope you're right. > > I read Hacker News and some of the more programmer related parts of > Reddit, and yes, there are some vocal people there that would like to see C > outlawed. Fair enough. (So do I, sometimes, incidentally.) But my impression is that it's only a thing among the weirdos, not in industry or mainstream academia. :( > I, personally, don't agree with that. I would however, like to > see C programmers know assembly language before using C (I think that would > help a lot, especially with pointer usage). Sounds like a step back towards older times, and as such, I fear it is very unlikely. > I read that and it doesn't really seem that CAOS would have been much > better than what actually came out. Okay, the potentially better resource > tracking would be nice, but that's about it really. The story of ARX, the unfinished Acorn OS in Modula-2 for the then-prototype Archimedes, is similar. No, it probably wouldn't have been all that radical. I wonder how much of Amiga OS' famed performance, compactness, etc. was a direct result of its adaptation to the MMU-less 68000, and thus could never have been implemented in a way that could have been made more robust on later chips such as the 68030? > I was expecting > something like Synthesis OS: > > http://valerieaurora.org/synthesis/SynthesisOS/ > > (which *is* mind blowing and I wish the code was available). Ah, yes, I've read much of that. I agree. Mind you, Taos was similarly mind-blowing for me. >> GNOME 1 was heavily based on CORBA. (I believe -- but am not sure -- >> that later versions discarded much of it.) KDE reinvented that >> particular wheel. > > I blew that one---CORBA lived for about ten years longer than I expected. Yeah. :-( I think elements of it are still around, too. > Wait ... what? You first decried about poorly-designed OSes, and then > went on to say there were better than before? I'm confused. Or are you > saying that we should have something *other* than what we do have? Well, yes, exactly. That is precisely what I'm saying. > I spent some hours on the Urbit site. Between the obscure writing, > entirely new jargon and the "we're going to change the world" attitude, it > very much feels like the Xanadu Project. I am not sure I'm the person to try to summarise it. I've nicked my own effort from my tech blog: I've not tried Urbit. (Yet.) But my impression is this: It's not obfuscatory for the hell of it. It is, yes, but for a valid reason: that he doesn't want to waste time explaining or supporting it. It's hard because you need to be v v bright to fathom it; obscurity is a user filter. He claims NOT to be a Lisp type, not to have known anything much about the language or LispMs, & to have re-invented some of the underlying ideas independently. I'm not sure I believe this. My view of it from a technical perspective is this. (This may sound over-dramatic.) We are so mired in the C world that modern CPUs are essentially C machines. The conceptual model of C, of essentially all compilers, OSes, imperative languages, &c. is a flawed one -- it is too simple an abstraction. Q.v. http://www.loper-os.org/?p=55 The LispM model was a better one, because it's slightly richer. That's "slightly" in the St Exupery sense, i.e. "…perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove." Instead of bytes & blocks of them, the basic unit is the list. Operations are defined in terms of lists, not bytes. You define a few very simple operations & that's all you need. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3482389/how-many-primitives-does-it-take-to-build-a-lisp-machine-ten-seven-or-five The way LispMs worked, AIUI, is that the machine language wasn't Lisp, it was something far simpler, but designed to map onto Lisp concepts. I have been told that modern CPU design & optimisations & so on map really poorly onto this set of primitives. That LispM CPUs were stack machines, but modern processors are register machines. I am not competent to judge the truth of this. If Yarvin's claims are to be believed, he has done 2 intertwined things: [1] Experimentally or theoretically worked out something akin to these primitives. [2] Found or worked out a way to map them onto modern CPUs. This is his "machine code". Something that is not directly connected or associated with modern CPUs' machine languages. He has built something OTHER but defined his own odd language to describe it & implement it. He has DELIBERATELY made it unlike anything else so you don't bring across preconceptions & mental impurities. You need to start over. The basic layer is both foundation & insulation. It's technological insulation, a barrier between the byte machine underneath
Re: Ideas for running a VB4 application on modern hardware?
On 3 May 2016 at 19:16, Mike Whalen wrote: > Something I didn’t say explicitly that has caused some confusion is the > following: > > We are an ESX 5.5 environment. None of our servers are physical, save for > the ESX server. Also, when I said “bare-metal” earlier, what I really meant > was that the remote site runs ESX and will bring up our VMs. Aww jeez. So when you said "bare metal" you actually meant "NOT bare metal"? > So, when I say that I may need to spool up a VM to run this software, I > really mean another VM inside ESX. A separate VM on the host machine with XP and the app should be entirely doable. I strongly suggest enabling the ePosReady 2009 security tweak, though: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/26/german_tinkerer_gets_around_xpocalypse/ Getting an XPMode VM into it will be tricky, though. A reinstall might be necessary. > Or I may put Virtual Box w/ XP or Windows 98 on the 2012 VM. That would be significantly inefficient and I would not recommend it myself. -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
Re: Ideas for running a VB4 application on modern hardware?
On 3 May 2016 at 16:55, Chuck Guzis wrote: > I'll retrench and restate that in terms of "it depends". If your CPU > doesn't support Hardware Virtualization Mode, you're out of luck: > > http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/5460/our-look-at-xp-mode-in-windows-7/ 16-bit support and hardware virtualisation extensions are 2 totally separate and orthogonal issues. Secondly, desktop hypervisors such as VirtualBox and VMware can do software trapping of Ring 0 instructions on systems lacking hardware virtualisation extensions, so they will still work and the method I suggest will still function. I'd expect that performance would drop 15% or so, though. I suspect that 16-bit code compatibility will remain in x86-64 until the end of its days, but I could be wrong... -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
Re: Ideas for running a VB4 application on modern hardware?
On 3 May 2016 at 16:20, geneb wrote: > The issue is that with 64 bit versions of windows, the 16 bit thunking layer > isn't present. The simplest way to do this is to grab VMWare Player (free > download) and then create a Win98 VM. Google can point to a number of > downloadable, ready-to-run Win98SE VMs. VMware Player is freeware, not FOSS, and there might be licensing issues. VirtualBox is FOSS apart from the extensions pack. That is one reason that I recommended it. Secondly, I have experimentally tried Windows 3, 95, 98, ME, NT 3, NT 4, W2K, XP, Vista, 7, 8 & 10 under VirtualBox. Including concurrently. I recommended XP for multiple reasons: [a] It is the oldest and earliest version of Windows for which VirtualBox Guest Additions are available. This allows host/guest integration, file sharing, a shared clipboard, seamless mode, etc. Otherwise it is very difficult to get data in or out of the VM. [b] Using the ePosReady 2009 registry hack, security patches are still available, and it will run recent browsers. [c] Using the XP Mode VM, which is freely downloadable from MS, you do not need to install and customise it. -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
Re: center tapped power transformer help needed
On 05/03/2016 8:51 PM, Jim Brain wrote: On 5/3/2016 10:48 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: On 05/03/2016 08:08 PM, Jim Brain wrote: 60 Hz? Maybe you could give the guys at Prem Magnetics a call. They're always sending emails offering to do custom work. http://www.premmagnetics.com/ Yep, 50/60Hz. I will check them out. Also, Ian, thanks for the link. I'll check them out as well. I will admit, though, those Xformers looks huge in the brochure, and I always thought those little 120->6.3V 6VA transformers I used to find in cannibalized tape recorders and such were so much smaller. Jim Nothing stopping you from using two smaller transformers - 120 primary to some secondary voltage, say 24VAC, then a second transformer with a 240V CT primary that also has a 24VAC secondary. Assuming you get the VA figured out correctly these should work and be much smaller than a single 240CT to 120VAC transformer. Hammond Manufacturing makes a wide range of superior quality transformers that is widely used by the tube and regular electronics folk. https://www.hammfg.com/electronics/transformers/power/186-187 I think you will find this series helpful, note the VA rating and get yourself one of the 187C20 and a 186C20 - or for a bit extra power and to allow for losses, get the 187D20 and 186D20 - wire the 24VAC secondaries together (ignoring the centre tap on the secondaries of course). Farily compact. Hammond also will wind you a single or a thousand transformers...I like looking at their complete line, including a replacement transformer for the early 1920s RCA Radiola III battery radio. https://www.hammfg.com/electronics/transformers/classic/118944 Amazing range! https://www.hammfg.com/electronics/transformers/classic/zone John :-#)# -- John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9 Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, VideoGames) www.flippers.com "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out"
