f



R: IS CP/M an OS?

rosssimpson@optusnet.com.au (Ross Simpson) wrote 

> It has been shown though that other disk formats are possible to
> develop under CP/M, since one of the copies I have of it is used to
> access more drives & differently formatted disks.

Any program can bypass the BDOS and get to the raw drive either though
BIOS or directly by bit-banging the hardware.  Then it can do anything
it wishes in the way of strange formats.
 
> So what's this thing I hear now which states that CP/M isn't an OS?

Whether it is or not depends entirely on what the term 'Operating
System' is defined as.  There would have to be some minimum
requirements of course.
 
> If CP/M isn't a OS, then DOS isn't either! ;-)

I's agree to that, certainly.

> But of course I could be mistaken, since Alley Cat is a game which
> runs itself from Bootup.

Exactly, it doesn't need to be an OS, or have an OS, in order to boot
an run.
0
riplin (4127)
11/12/2003 2:02:37 AM
comp.os.cpm 3422 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

137 Replies
952 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 9

"Richard" wrote in message...

> > It has been shown though that other disk formats are possible to
> > develop under CP/M, since one of the copies I have of it is used to
> > access more drives & differently formatted disks.

> Any program can bypass the BDOS and get to the raw drive either though
> BIOS or directly by bit-banging the hardware.  Then it can do anything
> it wishes in the way of strange formats.

Yes, as in the case of Freek Heite & CP/M-86.

> > So what's this thing I hear now which states that CP/M isn't an OS?

> Whether it is or not depends entirely on what the term 'Operating
> System' is defined as.  There would have to be some minimum
> requirements of course.

Certainlly programs like GEM & early Windows don't count, but they need
DOS to run...

> > If CP/M isn't a OS, then DOS isn't either! ;-)

> I's agree to that, certainly.

....However, if DOS isn't a OS, then none of that stuff was. Yet it gave
the computer some functibility. But what if were to say that there are
no operating systems which requires bootup? The OS would essentially be
the BIOS, which on just about any IBM comptable tells this machine to
look for something via the disk?

Some would argue that the OS is the program the user interacts with to
load their software!

> > But of course I could be mistaken, since Alley Cat is a game which
> > runs itself from Bootup.

> Exactly, it doesn't need to be an OS, or have an OS, in order to boot
> an run.

Yes. Just like some Amstrad games load when '|cpm' is typed & entered.

Cheers,
Ross.


0
11/12/2003 5:04:46 AM
Ross Simpson <Hi_Mr_Spammer@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
: ...However, if DOS isn't a OS, then none of that stuff was. Yet it gave
: the computer some functibility. But what if were to say that there are
: no operating systems which requires bootup? The OS would essentially be
: the BIOS, which on just about any IBM comptable tells this machine to
: look for something via the disk?

  Funny you should mention that. On Amstrad PCs, the BIOS wasn't called the
BIOS. It was called the Resident Operating System.

-- 
------------- http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/index.html --------------------
John Elliott           |BLOODNOK: "But why have you got such a long face?"
                       |SEAGOON: "Heavy dentures, Sir!"    - The Goon Show 
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------)
0
jce (444)
11/12/2003 7:13:23 PM
John Elliott wrote:
> Ross Simpson <Hi_Mr_Spammer@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
> 
> : ...However, if DOS isn't a OS, then none of that stuff was. Yet
> : it gave the computer some functibility. But what if were to say
> : that there are no operating systems which requires bootup? The
> : OS would essentially be the BIOS, which on just about any IBM
> : comptable tells this machine to look for something via the disk?
> 
> Funny you should mention that. On Amstrad PCs, the BIOS wasn't
> called the BIOS. It was called the Resident Operating System.

My 8080 based systems, designed about 1974, contained a monitor
that included all the functions of a CP/M bios and more, including
a debugger, mainframe communication protocols, some other
fundamentals to do with interrupts, timers, initializing baud
rates, etc.  I called it MOS (Monitor Operating System).  The
result was that a CP/M bios eventually required less than 128
bytes.  MOS remained in the end-product embedded systems, while
CP/M did not.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!


0
cbfalconer (19194)
11/13/2003 6:13:33 PM
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3FB3C071.1445695D@yahoo.com...
<snip>
> My 8080 based systems, designed about 1974, contained a monitor
> that included all the functions of a CP/M bios and more, including
> a debugger, mainframe communication protocols, some other
> fundamentals to do with interrupts, timers, initializing baud
> rates, etc.  I called it MOS (Monitor Operating System).  The
> result was that a CP/M bios eventually required less than 128
> bytes.  MOS remained in the end-product embedded systems, while
> CP/M did not.
<snip>

It does not matter what you or anyone else calls something, it only matters
if its function meets the accepted definition of the task.  Webster defines
an operating system as:

Main Entry: operating system
Function: noun
Date: 1961
: software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the
processing of programs (as by assigning storage space in memory and
controlling input and output functions)

Webster may not be the only source of definitions of terms used in the
English language at least it has an honored history.

MOS obviously both meets and exceeds any reasonable definition of an OS.
Some boot ROMS contain a great deal of code, but by my definition at least
fails as an OS like the Kaypro ROM which also contains all of the I/O
routines for CP/M.

The more important thing to keep in mind is this group comp.os.cpm is here
for all of the members to share what knowledge they have with others.  We
are here to both be teachers and be pupils at the same time.

One troll has no knowledge of computers at all and no desire to learn; I do
not know why he would be a member of this group at all.


0
randy482 (428)
11/13/2003 7:07:49 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote 

> It does not matter what you or anyone else calls something, 

> but by my definition at least fails as an OS ...
        ^^^^

You started well, telling everyone they should use 'accepted'
definitions and not to apply their own opinions.

Then it all fell apart as you simply continued to use your own
personal opinions as definitions.
0
riplin (4127)
11/13/2003 10:19:55 PM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0311131419.324b4b75@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > It does not matter what you or anyone else calls something,
>
> > but by my definition at least fails as an OS ...
>         ^^^^
>
> You started well, telling everyone they should use 'accepted'
> definitions and not to apply their own opinions.
>
> Then it all fell apart as you simply continued to use your own
> personal opinions as definitions.

As usual in your ignorance you cut a small piece of text out without having
the sense to show what was the true context.

My context was that to use a term such as OS you must use a reasonable
definition (my definition was from Webster's online dictionary).

"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:GBQsb.446$rV.54@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
<snip>
> It does not matter what you or anyone else calls something, it only
matters
> if its function meets the accepted definition of the task.  Webster
defines
> an operating system as:
>
> Main Entry: operating system
> Function: noun
> Date: 1961
> : software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the
> processing of programs (as by assigning storage space in memory and
> controlling input and output functions)
>
> Webster may not be the only source of definitions of terms used in the
> English language at least it has an honored history.
>
> MOS obviously both meets and exceeds any reasonable definition of an OS.
> Some boot ROMS contain a great deal of code, but by my definition at least
> fails as an OS like the Kaypro ROM which also contains all of the I/O
> routines for CP/M.
<snip>

I did give one world-wide accepted definition of an OS, referred to a
particular OS that more than met that definition and any other reasonable
definition.  I then mentioned a computer that had a similar ROM (a computer
well known to most in this group) that failed my quoted definition of an OS.

Next time please get someone smarter than you to read for you and explain it
to you.  In your case I can not imagine how you could find anyone who is not
smarter than you.


0
randy482 (428)
11/13/2003 10:58:47 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote

> I did give one world-wide accepted definition of an OS, 

From 1961.  The operation of computers has become somewhat more
complicated since then.

> Next time please get someone smarter than you to read for you

While I accept that you may _think_ that I said that CP/M is not an
OS, you may like to read what I _actually_ did say.  I am usually very
careful about the words that I use.

For example I did give a quote about what _some_ on the planet believe
is the requirements of an OS in respose to your 'not used on this
planet' jibe.  I did not indicate whether I agreed that this was a
requiremnet.

I also said that Gary named it a Monitor and Control Program and not
an OS, and I agreed that 'if CP/M is not an OS then neither is MS-DOS'
without commenting whether both are or not.

In fact I indicated that CP/M (and DOS) is a _Disk_ OS, a subset of
the full range of features offered by a complete OS.

CP/M provides facilities for the operation of a Disk filing system, it
only provides rudimentary facilities for other aspects that may be
availiable in other systems, in some cases no more than the facilities
in a 'monitor'.

RTOSes, which has been mentioned, provides primarily for the OS subset
related to processes, flags, locks, critical sections, and so on, but
maybe not much else.  That is why that are called _RT_OS instead of
OS, which may imply more that just a subset.

Many systems that rank as being an 'Operating System' (without
qualification) would have a part that is a DOS, another that may be
almost an RTOS, certainly a user interface, a process scheduler, and
many other components, most of which are missing from CP/M.

I do agree that I have been 'pushing your buttons' by careful wording,
perhaps it has just been too easy.  I also utilised your propensity to
treat 'processor', 'computer' and 'system' as being synonyms for CPU. 
While you are quite correct that TurboDOS is not Multi-user on one
'processor' as MP/M is, when several processors are made up into one
computer (in one cabinet), or several computers are connected into one
system then  ....

I am quite happy to be criticised for what I did actually say, but not
for words that I did not write.
0
riplin (4127)
11/14/2003 7:03:46 PM
"Richard" wrote in message...

> > I did give one world-wide accepted definition of an OS,

> From 1961.  The operation of computers has become somewhat more
> complicated since then.

Can you please explain this a little more, Richard?

The PDP-1 came out around that time & while I don't know much about the
Operating System it used.

Cheers,
Ross.


0
11/14/2003 8:46:56 PM
"Ross Simpson" <Hi_Mr_Spammer@nowhere.com.au> wrote

> > From 1961.  The operation of computers has become somewhat more
> > complicated since then.
> 
> Can you please explain this a little more, Richard?
> 
> The PDP-1 came out around that time & while I don't know much about the
> Operating System it used.

The PDP-1 timeshare system was started in September 1962 and was one
of the 'somewhat more complicated'.
0
riplin (4127)
11/15/2003 4:08:10 AM
"Ross Simpson" <Hi_Mr_Spammer@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message news:<3fb53fab$0$14055$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> "Richard" wrote in message...
> 
> > > I did give one world-wide accepted definition of an OS,
>  
> > From 1961.  The operation of computers has become somewhat more
> > complicated since then.
> 
> Can you please explain this a little more, Richard?

CP/M's functionality isn't too different than other single-user
mini-computer OS's from the late 60's/early 70's.  (Witness the obvious
heritage with OS/8 and DOS-11 and RT-11, which themselves can be traced
back to the PDP-1 software.)  Expecting it to be more than
those wouldn't be fair.

No, those minicomputer OS's weren't exactly trailblazing at the time either.
There was exciting stuff going on all around, and only some of the excitement
lived through today.

What is distinctly "new" in CP/M as opposed to those other OS's is that
it was very amenable to being ported to new machines with the only changes
having to be made in the BIOS.  Some of the contemporary minicomputer OS's
had fancy features like loadable device drivers, but when bringing CP/M
up on a new machine those fancy features would've only gotten in the way.
The simplicity and directness of the BIOS layer was a winner.
True, few end-users knew about that layer, but it was important to
CP/M's proliferation.

Tim.
0
shoppa (98)
11/16/2003 12:57:24 AM
"Tim Shoppa" <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote in message
news:bec993c8.0311151657.4e76b608@posting.google.com...
> What is distinctly "new" in CP/M as opposed to those other OS's is that
> it was very amenable to being ported to new machines with the only changes
> having to be made in the BIOS.
>
The other "new" concept was the idea that an OS could be sold independent of
the hardware vendor.  The 8080 CPU opened up hardware to anyone with a
garage or kitchen table.  It was the paradigm shift (no I'm not one of those
Gartner type managespeak drones) that brought us to the intel-microsoft
market today.  Anyone could throw together a board with a processor and
disk, customize CP/M, package some CBASIC apps, and sell a complete turnkey
system.  DEC and Data General had low end OSes comparable to CP/M in
capability (RT-11, and, hmm, SOS or RDOS?) but you had to have a PDP-11 or
Nova to run them.  Just about anyone's 8080, 8085, or Z80 system would run
CP/M.

DRI even sold CP/M to end users who wanted to roll their own system.  At the
time if you called DEC and wanted to run RT on your own hardware, well, the
sales guys would get a good laugh over it at lunch.
   Jack Peacock


0
peacock (183)
11/16/2003 1:09:58 AM
"Richard" wrote in message...

> > > From 1961.  The operation of computers has become somewhat more
> > > complicated since then.

> > Can you please explain this a little more, Richard?

> > The PDP-1 came out around that time & while I don't know much about
the
> > Operating System it used.

> The PDP-1 timeshare system was started in September 1962 and was one
> of the 'somewhat more complicated'.

The details I have about this computer state it started in the fall of
1961, but also states that, it was the first production model of the
PDP-1, which was installed in the "Kludge Room", next door to a TX-0.

Unfortuately, I don't have the URL on hand, but a Google search for "The
World's First Toy Computer"+"SPACEWAR!" should reveal this site.

'Cause, they could also be wrong! ;-)

Cheers,
Ross.


0
11/16/2003 4:33:39 AM
"Tim Shoppa" wrote in message...

> > Can you please explain this a little more, Richard?

> CP/M's functionality isn't too different than other single-user
> mini-computer OS's from the late 60's/early 70's.  (Witness the
obvious
> heritage with OS/8 and DOS-11 and RT-11, which themselves can be
traced
> back to the PDP-1 software.)  Expecting it to be more than
> those wouldn't be fair.

> No, those minicomputer OS's weren't exactly trailblazing at the time
either.
> There was exciting stuff going on all around, and only some of the
excitement
> lived through today.

> What is distinctly "new" in CP/M as opposed to those other OS's is
that
> it was very amenable to being ported to new machines with the only
changes
> having to be made in the BIOS.  Some of the contemporary minicomputer
OS's
> had fancy features like loadable device drivers, but when bringing
CP/M
> up on a new machine those fancy features would've only gotten in the
way.
> The simplicity and directness of the BIOS layer was a winner.
> True, few end-users knew about that layer, but it was important to
> CP/M's proliferation.

Thanks Tim.

Cheers,
Ross.


0
11/16/2003 4:36:53 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0311141103.60ebf7cd@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> While I accept that you may _think_ that I said that CP/M is not an
> OS, you may like to read what I _actually_ did say.  I am usually very
> careful about the words that I use.
<snip>

> I do agree that I have been 'pushing your buttons' by careful wording,
> perhaps it has just been too easy.  I also utilised your propensity to
> treat 'processor', 'computer' and 'system' as being synonyms for CPU.
> While you are quite correct that TurboDOS is not Multi-user on one
> 'processor' as MP/M is, when several processors are made up into one
> computer (in one cabinet), or several computers are connected into one
> system then  ....
>
> I am quite happy to be criticised for what I did actually say, but not
> for words that I did not write.

Below is a list of some things you did say, plus a definition for the group
that have been debating whether a troll is a person or not.  Richard's
quotes have a single '>'.

<snip>
>> Please share with us poor idiots your definition of what a real OS
>> must have to be an OS.
>
> Well here is one definition that _some_ on this planet _do_ use:
>
> """Operating System (OS) - A big complicated computer program that
> lets multiple simultaneously executing big complicated computer
> programs coexist peacefully on one physical computer. The operating
> system is also responsible for hiding the details of the computer
> hardware from the application programmers, e.g., letting a programmer
> say "I want to write ABC into a file named XYZ" without the programmer
> having to know how many disk drives the computer has or what company
> manufactured those drives. Examples of operating systems are Unix and
> Windows NT. Examples of things that try to be operating systems but
> mostly fail to fulfill the "coexist peacefully" condition are Windows
> and the Macintosh OS."""
>
>> I must assume that if MS-DOS falls short then CP/M
>> has no chance of being an OS and NS-DOS being even simpler is who knows
>> what.
>
>Exactly, see you _can_ learn things.
<snip>
>> Sorry, I still believe that CP/M is an OS BTW what does comp.os.cpm stand
>> for?
>
>ROFL.  CP/M stands for Control Program/Monitor.  Gary knew better than
> to try to call it an Operating System.  Apparently you do not.
<snip>
>> Apparently whoever created the group thought it was on OS also :-).
>
> No. Whoever created the comp.os.cpm group did not think it worthwhile
> to bother creating a comp.not_quite_an_os. hierarchy.
<snip>

Only using your words and not putting other words in or even taking your
words out of context: When you were asked for a definition of an OS you gave
a definition that would not fit CP/M.  When asked if you specifically
excluded CP/M as an OS your answer was "exactly" an affirmative response.

Anyone that has a belief and "sticks to his guns" can be admired.  If he can
argue and have conviction about his beliefs he can be admired.  If he is
willing to listen to some modicum of debate and consider its weight he can
be admired.  I can even admire a troll that stirs up debate to find a common
consensus about something worthy of argument.

Internet troll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

On the Internet, a troll is a person who posts messages that create
controversy or an angry response without adding content  to the discussion,
often intentionally. Though technically different from flaming, which is an
unmistakable direct personal attack, trolls often resort to innuendo or
misdirection in the pursuit of their objective, which is to create
controversy for its own sake, discredit those with whom they disagree, or
sabotage discussion by creating an intimidating atmosphere.


0
randy482 (428)
11/16/2003 7:35:48 AM
On 15 Nov 2003 16:57:24 -0800 in alt.folklore.computers,
shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) wrote:

>"Ross Simpson" <Hi_Mr_Spammer@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message news:<3fb53fab$0$14055$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
>> "Richard" wrote in message...
>> 
>> > > I did give one world-wide accepted definition of an OS,
>>  
>> > From 1961.  The operation of computers has become somewhat more
>> > complicated since then.
>> 
>> Can you please explain this a little more, Richard?
>
>CP/M's functionality isn't too different than other single-user
>mini-computer OS's from the late 60's/early 70's.  (Witness the obvious
>heritage with OS/8 and DOS-11 and RT-11, which themselves can be traced
>back to the PDP-1 software.)  Expecting it to be more than
>those wouldn't be fair.
>
>No, those minicomputer OS's weren't exactly trailblazing at the time either.
>There was exciting stuff going on all around, and only some of the excitement
>lived through today.

MIT ran a timesharing system on their PDP-1. 
-- 
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Brian.Inglis@CSi.com 	(Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
    fake address		use address above to reply
0
11/16/2003 7:50:48 AM
"Randy McLaughlin" wrote in message...

<snipped!>

> Below is a list of some things you did say, plus a definition for the
group
> that have been debating whether a troll is a person or not.  Richard's
> quotes have a single '>'.

> <snip>

> > """Operating System (OS) - A big complicated computer program that
> > lets multiple simultaneously executing big complicated computer
> > programs coexist peacefully on one physical computer. The operating
> > system is also responsible for hiding the details of the computer
> > hardware from the application programmers, e.g., letting a
programmer
> > say "I want to write ABC into a file named XYZ" without the
programmer
> > having to know how many disk drives the computer has or what company
> > manufactured those drives. Examples of operating systems are Unix
and
> > Windows NT. Examples of things that try to be operating systems but
> > mostly fail to fulfill the "coexist peacefully" condition are
Windows
> > and the Macintosh OS."""

Supposing this is Richard's post (from earlier on), what exactly
qualifies as a "BIG Complicated computer program"?

Just recently, we were discussing that perhaps the BIOS is, but the BIOS
isn't BIG (at least I don't think it's BIG) & unless the BIOS setup
program is there, then Computer Program might be stretching it! There's
no reason why someone can't reprogram the BIOS to make an IBM based
machine (I'm assuming MACs are the same deal) believe it's something
else & load something else (not necessarily off disk, it could be any
type of media).

Naturally, I believe a software interrupt is just something these
argubibly "OSes" provide more freedom to without writing your own via
hardware interrupts. And then there's ways of elimating Hardware
interrupts, by writing your own, which can easily be faster.

So, I would have to ask, then if CP/M, DOS aren't OSes then the BIOS is
the only thing they are addressing? And if the BIOS is THE OS, then what
makes CP/M & DOS, Operating Environments? And if So, what is Earlier
Windows, GEM & all those other Environments which make them Operating
Environments, Level 2 Operating Environment?

> > No. Whoever created the comp.os.cpm group did not think it
worthwhile
> > to bother creating a comp.not_quite_an_os. hierarchy.

Trouble is, is are people checking Google Groups to even see when this
group started? If my memory is correct, it started in the mid to late
80s, so by definition were're talking about a group which started just
when OS/2 came out (or just before hand). Unix was too powerful for what
most people were running, GEM was trying to hang in there (from Apple
Lawsuit), Windows wasn't at it's peak & Minix was just an idea! ;-) So
really the closest thing to an OS was OS/2, perhaps IBM had a reason for
putting the /2 after the OS bit?, perhaps to indicate that it was a
level 2 OS (level 1 being the allmighty BIOS), to call it OS/1 makes it
sound confusing, since there were those people who question how
dependant their OS is on the BIOS?

So, maybe instead of creating a comp.not_quite_an_os. hierarchy, maybe
renaming the comp.os.<insert whatever here> bit to comp.os2.<insert
whatever here>, so we can enjoy some for OS/2 posts who think this is a
OS/2 users group! It can just be like the Amstrad newsgroup, where lots
of Amstrad PC owners post their questions there! :-)

> Internet troll
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

> On the Internet, a troll is a person who posts messages that create
> controversy or an angry response without adding content  to the
discussion,
> often intentionally. Though technically different from flaming, which
is an
> unmistakable direct personal attack, trolls often resort to innuendo
or
> misdirection in the pursuit of their objective, which is to create
> controversy for its own sake, discredit those with whom they disagree,
or
> sabotage discussion by creating an intimidating atmosphere.

Yeah, but what exactly qualifies as a troll?

Someone (possibly Richard) mentioned that Troll messages, can be sent
from people to which others think their messages are nothing more than
trolling messages. I've noticed a kinda issue where others have posted
here only do so much & nothing more, that nothing more seems to include
general discussions, opinions, so my point being, to them I'm trolling
my messages. So is there anything wrong with a little discussion? But of
course, I could just be reading this all wrong, since lots of people
don't have much time to spend writing or reading other material, as they
have more of a life to contend with, which is fair enough! :-)

Cheers,
Ross.


0
11/16/2003 9:34:53 AM
In article <xNCdnf8wPev6UyuiRVn-vg@mpowercom.net>,
   "Jack Peacock" <peacock@simconv.com> wrote:
>"Tim Shoppa" <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote in message
>news:bec993c8.0311151657.4e76b608@posting.google.com...
>> What is distinctly "new" in CP/M as opposed to those other OS's is that
>> it was very amenable to being ported to new machines with the only 
changes
>> having to be made in the BIOS.
>>
>The other "new" concept was the idea that an OS could be sold independent 
of
>the hardware vendor.  The 8080 CPU opened up hardware to anyone with a
>garage or kitchen table.  It was the paradigm shift (no I'm not one of 
those
>Gartner type managespeak drones) that brought us to the intel-microsoft
>market today.  Anyone could throw together a board with a processor and
>disk, customize CP/M, package some CBASIC apps, and sell a complete 
turnkey
>system.  DEC and Data General had low end OSes comparable to CP/M in
>capability (RT-11, and, hmm, SOS or RDOS?) but you had to have a PDP-11 or
>Nova to run them.  Just about anyone's 8080, 8085, or Z80 system would run
>CP/M.
>
>DRI even sold CP/M to end users who wanted to roll their own system.  At 
the
>time if you called DEC and wanted to run RT on your own hardware, well, 
the
>sales guys would get a good laugh over it at lunch.

I consider this attitude [hardware only] as the one single
thing that destroyed DEC.  I dearly wanted to explore the
problems we'ld have if we sold software-only licenses as
a part number rather than a package agreement with one
business.  IAS or RT-11 (I'd have favored IAS) would have
been an ideal test OS.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
0
jmfbahciv (721)
11/16/2003 11:39:51 AM
Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote in message news:<g1bervk8oda3vu81f5nkec6h0put1e0h24@4ax.com>...
> MIT ran a timesharing system on their PDP-1.

And that timesharing system spawned its own evolutionary branch (which
osculates with the OS/8 - DOS-11 - RT-11 - RDOS branch in several places).

And I run a timesharing MP/M system on my IMSAI 8080A, looking
the "other" direction in evolution.

Admittedly the "ancestor OS's" and CP/M themselves are pretty bare-bones.

When I look at OS's today, I don't necessarily think in terms of the OS's
themselves, but the design decisions and external constraints involved.
Even though naked CP/M and its ancestors are rather minimal, there
was real design put into them.  (Also, some random good luck!)

There were other non-ancestor OS's that
don't have descendents today because the constraints on them were
comparatively specialized.

Tim.
0
shoppa (98)
11/16/2003 2:00:20 PM
"Ross Simpson" <Hi_Mr_Spammer@nowhere.com.au> writes:
> The details I have about this computer state it started in the fall of
> 1961, but also states that, it was the first production model of the
> PDP-1, which was installed in the "Kludge Room", next door to a TX-0.
>
> Unfortuately, I don't have the URL on hand, but a Google search for "The
> World's First Toy Computer"+"SPACEWAR!" should reveal this site.

recent related threads:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003c.html#0 Wanted: Weird Programming Language
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003c.html#62 Re : OT: One for the historians - 360/91
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003c.html#72 OT: One for the historians - 360/91
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003d.html#28 Why only 24 bits on S/360?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003d.html#38 The PDP-1 - games machine?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003f.html#39 1130 Games WAS Re: Any DEC 340 Display System Doco ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#7 Any DEC 340 Display System Doco ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003i.html#27 instant messaging
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#14 Seven of Nine

from seven of nine post ... 9/13/2003

spacewar on pdp1 graphics screen in the 60s:
http://www.mess.org/sysinfo/pdp1.htm
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/02/28/136217.shtml?tid=127

3d tic-tac-toe on tx-0 graphics screen in the 50s
http://coyote.csusm.edu/lynniebhist/comphist.htm

and

http://memex.org/cm-archive10.html
the following from above:

Les Earnest writes:
I vaguely recall that someone at Bell Labs built a relay computer that
played tic-tac-toe sometime in the late 1940s or early 1950s.  The
TX-0 computer at MIT also had a tic-tac-toe game when I started
playing with it in 1959.  It displayed the board on its CRT and you
selected moves by pointing with a lite pen.


-- 
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ 
Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm
0
lynn13 (400)
11/16/2003 4:19:58 PM
"Ross Simpson" <Hi_Mr_Spammer@nowhere.com.au> wrote 

> > The PDP-1 timeshare system was started in September 1962 and was one
> > of the 'somewhat more complicated'.
> 
> The details I have about this computer state it started in the fall of
> 1961, but also states that, it was the first production model of the
> PDP-1, which was installed in the "Kludge Room", next door to a TX-0.
> 
> Unfortuately, I don't have the URL on hand, but a Google search for "The
> World's First Toy Computer"+"SPACEWAR!" should reveal this site.

It is quite possible that they started to write the project, or had
the first machine in 1961, but the service was operational in
september 1962.
0
riplin (4127)
11/16/2003 6:03:38 PM
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:bp7rft$i6b$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> In article <xNCdnf8wPev6UyuiRVn-vg@mpowercom.net>,
> I consider this attitude [hardware only] as the one single
> thing that destroyed DEC.  I dearly wanted to explore the
> problems we'ld have if we sold software-only licenses as
> a part number rather than a package agreement with one
> business.  IAS or RT-11 (I'd have favored IAS) would have
> been an ideal test OS.
>
There was the deal DEC had with Plessey, where they got to use RT-11
software on their own machines.  Plessey used winchester drives and their
own memory instead of the in-house DEC drives and boards, which gave them a
hefty price differential compared to DEC list prices.  As I recall over time
the diverging hardware caused compatibility problems and the deal died a
quiet death.  I worked on one Plessey 11, not as well engineered as DEC
boxes.  One had to practically dismantle the entire chassis to get to
anything.  The machine was eventually lost in a building fire...the customer
wasn't too broken up about losing it.
   Jack Peacock


0
peacock (183)
11/16/2003 6:13:40 PM
Tim Shoppa wrote:
> 
.... snip ...
> 
> What is distinctly "new" in CP/M as opposed to those other OS's
> is that it was very amenable to being ported to new machines with
> the only changes having to be made in the BIOS.  Some of the
> contemporary minicomputer OS's had fancy features like loadable
> device drivers, but when bringing CP/M up on a new machine those
> fancy features would've only gotten in the way. The simplicity
> and directness of the BIOS layer was a winner. True, few
> end-users knew about that layer, but it was important to CP/M's
> proliferation.

I believe most "end users" of CP/M 1.3 and 1.4 were well aware of
the bios, and a non-trivial proportion of 2.2 users.  The
knowledge level was much higher than it is now, measured among
computer users.  Among the general population is another story.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

0
cbfalconer (19194)
11/16/2003 7:50:37 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote 

> Below is a list of some things you did say, plus a definition for the group
> that have been debating whether a troll is a person or not.  Richard's
> quotes have a single '>'.

Are you still banging on about this ?
 
> <snip>
> >> Please share with us poor idiots your definition of what a real OS
> >> must have to be an OS.
> >
> > Well here is one definition that _some_ on this planet _do_ use:

You had used a jibe that 'I used a definition that was not used by
anyone on this planet'.  In fact there was no evidence that I believed
anything in particular, but you seemed to think that I did.

So I responded with what _some_ on this planet did use as a definition
without indicating whether I was one of those _some_ or not.

> >> I must assume that if MS-DOS falls short then CP/M
> >> has no chance of being an OS and NS-DOS being even simpler is who knows
> >> what.
> >
> >Exactly, see you _can_ learn things.

Exactly: <<<<___IF__>>>>> MS-DOS falls short <<<<__THEN__>>>> ...

I made no comment at all whether they did fall short or not.  But
fully agree that if one is not then neither is the other.

In fact some other context that you ommitted was where I quite clearly
stated my position:

RM>>>> So what's this thing I hear now which states that CP/M isn't an
OS?

>>> Whether it is or not depends entirely on what the term 'Operating
>>> System' is defined as.  There would have to be some minimum
>>> requirements of course.


> >> Sorry, I still believe that CP/M is an OS BTW what does comp.os.cpm stand
> >> for?
> >
> >ROFL.  CP/M stands for Control Program/Monitor.  Gary knew better than
> > to try to call it an Operating System.  Apparently you do not.

Exactly.  Gary did not call it an 'Operating System', though he did
have it as a _DISK_ Operating System, the subset that handles a disk
filing system.

He understood timesharing systems and knew that for those aspects of
an OS, CP/M was just a simple monitor.

> >> Apparently whoever created the group thought it was on OS also :-).
> >
> > No. Whoever created the comp.os.cpm group did not think it worthwhile
> > to bother creating a comp.not_quite_an_os. hierarchy.

That is correect, the placement of this group is not _evidence_ of
anything in particular.

For example there is a group 'alt.os.multics'. This doen't mean that
multics is not related to computers (and thus should be
comp.os.multics).

> Only using your words and not putting other words in or even taking your
> words out of context: When you were asked for a definition of an OS you gave
> a definition that would not fit CP/M. 

The context that you left out was:

> > You obviously have a definition of what an OS is that is not used on this
> > planet.

So I supplied a definition that _was_ used on this planet, and
emphasised that _some_ did believe it.  Yes, it is a definition that,
in its entirity, doesn't fit CP/M.  But CP/M does basically fit the
Disk part, which is why it is a DOS (see BDOS).

> When asked if you specifically
> excluded CP/M as an OS your answer was "exactly" an affirmative response.

Now that is a deliberate misrepresentation.  My 'exacttly' was to "If
MS-DOS isn't an OS then neither is CP/M".  Both CP/M and MS-DOS are in
the same categorey.  Both are DOSes with basic monitoring facilities,
or nothing, for other features which may exist in other Operating
Systems.

> Anyone that has a belief and "sticks to his guns" can be admired.  

Why, thank you.  What you completely failed to notice was that for the
messages you quoted _I_DIDN'T_STATE_MY_BELIEFS_.  They were a figment
of your imagination.

I _still_ haven't stated whether I think CP/M can use the unqualified
term "Operating System".

> If he can argue and have conviction about his beliefs he can be admired.  

Actually I can provide evidence and examples without emotional
attachment. I try not to argue from a 'conviction', but from
_evidence_.

> Internet troll
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> 
> On the Internet, a troll is a person who posts messages 

Well I went to en2.Wikipedia.org and I did _not_ find your simplistic
assertion, instead I found:

""" -------------------------------------
Trolling (fishing)
The practice of fishing by drawing a baited line or lure behind a
boat. See trolling for fish.

Internet Trolling
The Jargon File supports the position that the term Internet troll
comes from the second meaning (to "fish" for gullible responses)
rather than the first (to act like a generally vile and troublesome
creature). However, as per the D&D Monster Manual, it does appear that
the most loathsome Internet trolls do in fact regenerate, and reappear
again and again under an ever-increasing proliferation of aliases and
IP numbers. Thus both meanings may be equally valid.
""" ----------------------------------------

This confirms that a person may be a 'troll' by being generally
unpleasant and regenerating under different identities (whether it be
internet, D&D, or just teenagers at the mall).

It also confirms that a message is a 'troll' (pronounced differently)
as in fishing when it is baited like a line and drawn across gullible
readers.

Many who never went fishing simply do not know that there is more than
one meaning or pronounciation to the word, so when there is talk of
'trolls' they can only think of Billy Goat Gruff.  They may not see
the connection, but without being better informed they will continue
with their misapprehension.

You may also want to reread what I actually said about this:

>>> I always thought of troll as the message, not the poster.

This does not say that 'troll as person is wrong', nor that I was
defining what 'troll' does mean.  It indicates what _I_ think of by
troll in that context and why, and also what the origin of 'troll as a
message' is.

Once again you argue about things that are unarguable.  You try to
create black-and-white where there is only gray.  You try to make your
opinions into some sort of law.

Things are _much_ more complicated then you would like them to be.

Now, instead of ranting on about how you failed to read my messages
correctly, applying your own predujice instead of the evidence, and
abusing everyone who provides alternate viewpoints to your opinions,
can we get back to how you might support the concept of how CP/M
fullfills a contemporary definition of unqualified 'Operating System'
rather than being a subset or almost meeting an obsolete definition ?
0
riplin (4127)
11/16/2003 7:57:49 PM
Richard wrote:
> 
> "Ross Simpson" <Hi_Mr_Spammer@nowhere.com.au> wrote
> 
> > > The PDP-1 timeshare system was started in September 1962 and was one
> > > of the 'somewhat more complicated'.
> >
> > The details I have about this computer state it started in the fall of
> > 1961, but also states that, it was the first production model of the
> > PDP-1, which was installed in the "Kludge Room", next door to a TX-0.
> >
> > Unfortuately, I don't have the URL on hand, but a Google search for "The
> > World's First Toy Computer"+"SPACEWAR!" should reveal this site.
> 
> It is quite possible that they started to write the project, or had
> the first machine in 1961, but the service was operational in
> september 1962.
>
If you are talking about a "timesharing system" (probably you
are referring to ITS), then there was *no* timesharing system
until the PDP-6. The PDP-1 *never* had a timesharing system
at MIT. The PDP-1 was a "single user" machine, and that is
how it ran when Spacewar! was played...

If you are referring to the development of Spacewar!, it was
developed on the PDP-1 beginning in December of 1961. (The
PDP-1 was first installed at MIT in the Fall of 1961.) The 
basic Spacewar! game was unveiled in February of 1962. 

My sources are _Hackers_, by Steven Levy, and a web page that
duplicates a Creative Computing article on Spacewar! written
by one of the three guys in the "Higham Institute" at:


	<http://users.rcn.com/enf/lore/spacewar/spacewar.html>

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
0
richchas2 (320)
11/17/2003 12:20:07 AM
CBFalconer wrote:
> 
> Tim Shoppa wrote:
> >
> ... snip ...
> >
> > What is distinctly "new" in CP/M as opposed to those other OS's
> > is that it was very amenable to being ported to new machines with
> > the only changes having to be made in the BIOS.  Some of the
> > contemporary minicomputer OS's had fancy features like loadable
> > device drivers, but when bringing CP/M up on a new machine those
> > fancy features would've only gotten in the way. The simplicity
> > and directness of the BIOS layer was a winner. True, few
> > end-users knew about that layer, but it was important to CP/M's
> > proliferation.
> 
> I believe most "end users" of CP/M 1.3 and 1.4 were well aware of
> the bios, and a non-trivial proportion of 2.2 users.  The
> knowledge level was much higher than it is now, measured among
> computer users.  Among the general population is another story.
> 
That's because most folks in those days running CP/M were 
*not* "users"...but hobbyists and hackers. "Users" is a
derogatory term describing the "unwashed masses" that is
often spelled as "lusers". Now programmers have their own
derogatory term..."script kiddies".

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
0
richchas2 (320)
11/17/2003 12:25:21 AM
"Charles Richmond" <richchas@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3FB83076.FD3101A4@comcast.net...
> CBFalconer wrote:
> >
> > Tim Shoppa wrote:
> > >
> > ... snip ...
> > >
> > > What is distinctly "new" in CP/M as opposed to those other OS's
> > > is that it was very amenable to being ported to new machines with
> > > the only changes having to be made in the BIOS.  Some of the
> > > contemporary minicomputer OS's had fancy features like loadable
> > > device drivers, but when bringing CP/M up on a new machine those
> > > fancy features would've only gotten in the way. The simplicity
> > > and directness of the BIOS layer was a winner. True, few
> > > end-users knew about that layer, but it was important to CP/M's
> > > proliferation.
> >
> > I believe most "end users" of CP/M 1.3 and 1.4 were well aware of
> > the bios, and a non-trivial proportion of 2.2 users.  The
> > knowledge level was much higher than it is now, measured among
> > computer users.  Among the general population is another story.
> >
> That's because most folks in those days running CP/M were
> *not* "users"...but hobbyists and hackers. "Users" is a
> derogatory term describing the "unwashed masses" that is
> often spelled as "lusers". Now programmers have their own
> derogatory term..."script kiddies".
>
> --
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+
> |   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+

Actually most CP/M users operated turn-key systems and had know idea what
CP/M was.  If the system was floppy based the disks were labeled to let the
user know what went where and they ran it by wrote; if it was hard drive
based it usually had a menu system or a submit file was usually created.
Just as computer users from very early on to today don't know anything about
computers.  Business after business have used computers to do a job, that is
all that the companies generally care about.

I spent a great deal of time installing CP/M as a wordprocessor for
businesses that not only didn't care what CP/M is but didn't want their
people to know what CP/M is.  They specifically wanted people to sit down
and type and type and type.

Computer hobbies were extremely important in making micros acceptable.

Almost every computer is an appliance, just something for people to do a
job.


0
randy482 (428)
11/17/2003 1:06:29 AM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:06:29 -0600, Randy McLaughlin <randy482@nospam.com>
wrote:
>Actually most CP/M users operated turn-key systems and had know idea what
>CP/M was.

This was only true of CP/M 2.2 and 3.0, with systems such as the Osborne 1
and Kaypro. There were no real applience CP/M systems until that time. CP/M
1.3, 1.4, and 2.0 users were pretty much all hackers, and had to be familiar
with the process of developing the BIOS. Some even had to toggle it in with
their computer's front panel switches.
0
jmaynard (220)
11/17/2003 2:13:21 AM

Charles Richmond wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> 
>>"Ross Simpson" <Hi_Mr_Spammer@nowhere.com.au> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>The PDP-1 timeshare system was started in September 1962 and was one
>>>>of the 'somewhat more complicated'.
>>>
>>>The details I have about this computer state it started in the fall of
>>>1961, but also states that, it was the first production model of the
>>>PDP-1, which was installed in the "Kludge Room", next door to a TX-0.
>>>
>>>Unfortuately, I don't have the URL on hand, but a Google search for "The
>>>World's First Toy Computer"+"SPACEWAR!" should reveal this site.
>>
>>It is quite possible that they started to write the project, or had
>>the first machine in 1961, but the service was operational in
>>september 1962.
>>
> 
> If you are talking about a "timesharing system" (probably you
> are referring to ITS), then there was *no* timesharing system
> until the PDP-6. The PDP-1 *never* had a timesharing system
> at MIT. The PDP-1 was a "single user" machine, and that is
> how it ran when Spacewar! was played...
> 
> If you are referring to the development of Spacewar!, it was
> developed on the PDP-1 beginning in December of 1961. (The
> PDP-1 was first installed at MIT in the Fall of 1961.) The 
> basic Spacewar! game was unveiled in February of 1962. 
> 
> My sources are _Hackers_, by Steven Levy, and a web page that
> duplicates a Creative Computing article on Spacewar! written
> by one of the three guys in the "Higham Institute" at:

I suggest you reread Hackers by Steven Levy, because he did mention a 
time sharing OS for the PDP-1.

Roy

> 
> 
> 	<http://users.rcn.com/enf/lore/spacewar/spacewar.html>
> 
> --
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+
> |   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
0
millers (188)
11/17/2003 2:23:08 AM

Randy McLaughlin wrote:

> "Charles Richmond" <richchas@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3FB83076.FD3101A4@comcast.net...
> 
>>CBFalconer wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Shoppa wrote:
>>>
>>>... snip ...
>>>
>>>>What is distinctly "new" in CP/M as opposed to those other OS's
>>>>is that it was very amenable to being ported to new machines with
>>>>the only changes having to be made in the BIOS.  Some of the
>>>>contemporary minicomputer OS's had fancy features like loadable
>>>>device drivers, but when bringing CP/M up on a new machine those
>>>>fancy features would've only gotten in the way. The simplicity
>>>>and directness of the BIOS layer was a winner. True, few
>>>>end-users knew about that layer, but it was important to CP/M's
>>>>proliferation.
>>>
>>>I believe most "end users" of CP/M 1.3 and 1.4 were well aware of
>>>the bios, and a non-trivial proportion of 2.2 users.  The
>>>knowledge level was much higher than it is now, measured among
>>>computer users.  Among the general population is another story.
>>>
>>
>>That's because most folks in those days running CP/M were
>>*not* "users"...but hobbyists and hackers. "Users" is a
>>derogatory term describing the "unwashed masses" that is
>>often spelled as "lusers". Now programmers have their own
>>derogatory term..."script kiddies".
>>
>>--
>>+----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
>>+----------------------------------------------------------------+
> 

I'll byte...

> 
> Actually most CP/M users operated turn-key systems and had know 

(no?)

idea what
> CP/M was.  If the system was floppy based the disks were labeled to let the
> user know what went where and they ran it by wrote; 

(rote?)

if it was hard drive
> based it usually had a menu system or a submit file was usually created.

Strange, by Kaypro 2X isn't like this.

> Just as computer users from very early on to today don't know anything about
> computers.  Business after business have 

(has?) (noun verb agreement, you have a singular noun here)

used computers to do a job, that is
> all that the companies generally care about.
> 
> I spent a great deal of time installing CP/M as a wordprocessor 

Wow! Most people had to use WordStar or PerfectWriter instead of the OS 
itself.

for
> businesses that not only didn't care what CP/M is but didn't want their
> people to know what CP/M is.  They specifically wanted people to sit down
> and type and type and type.
> 
> Computer hobbies were extremely important in making micros acceptable.
> 
> Almost every computer is an appliance, just something for people to do a
> job.

Roy

> 
> 



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
0
millers (188)
11/17/2003 2:29:09 AM
CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3FB7CB6D.4DA0EC81@yahoo.com>...
> I believe most "end users" of CP/M 1.3 and 1.4 were well aware of
> the bios

A good chunk of early CP/M sales were S-100 controller makers buying the
OS and reselling it under their own name.  They even shipped copies of the
CP/M documentation with "Digital Research CP/M" erased everywhere and
replaced by the vendor's name.

> and a non-trivial proportion of 2.2 users.

Yeah, the more technically inclined would know what layers existed under
the hood of their turnkey system.  I would guesstimate that less than
1% of the 2.2 users ever had their BIOS sources, much less modified them.

Tim.
0
shoppa (98)
11/17/2003 2:40:48 AM
Exegete wrote:
> 
> Charles Richmond wrote:
> > 
> >     [snip...]        [snip...]        [snip...]
> >
> > If you are talking about a "timesharing system" (probably you
> > are referring to ITS), then there was *no* timesharing system
> > until the PDP-6. The PDP-1 *never* had a timesharing system
> > at MIT. The PDP-1 was a "single user" machine, and that is
> > how it ran when Spacewar! was played...
> >
> > If you are referring to the development of Spacewar!, it was
> > developed on the PDP-1 beginning in December of 1961. (The
> > PDP-1 was first installed at MIT in the Fall of 1961.) The
> > basic Spacewar! game was unveiled in February of 1962.
> >
> > My sources are _Hackers_, by Steven Levy, and a web page that
> > duplicates a Creative Computing article on Spacewar! written
> > by one of the three guys in the "Higham Institute" at:
> 
> I suggest you reread Hackers by Steven Levy, because he did mention a
> time sharing OS for the PDP-1.
> 
Although it has been a while since I read it...I have read 
that book at least half a dozen times. I *really* like it.
I am on my second paperback copy...because my first copy
fell apart.

Can you give me a page reference about the BBN PDP-1 
timesharing OS???

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
0
richchas2 (320)
11/17/2003 3:10:18 AM
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:20:07 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
 Charles> If you are talking about a "timesharing system" (probably you
 Charles> are referring to ITS), then there was *no* timesharing system
 Charles> until the PDP-6. The PDP-1 *never* had a timesharing system
 Charles> at MIT. The PDP-1 was a "single user" machine, and that is
 Charles> how it ran when Spacewar! was played...

 Charles> My sources are _Hackers_, by Steven Levy, and a web page that
 Charles> duplicates a Creative Computing article on Spacewar! written
 Charles> by one of the three guys in the "Higham Institute"

There was indeed a PDP-1 timesharing system at MIT, and I believe
it's where the "capabilities" protection concept was originated.

My sources are: myself (ITS hacker) and various friends of mine who
had developed and used the PDP-1 timesharing system.  If you would
like a more "legitimate" reference, I think that Jack Dennis published
at least one paper about it: a CACM article entitled, "A multiuser
computation facility for education and research".

Wasn't "Hackers" the book that spelled TECO "TICO", and Multics "MULTIX"?
0
cstacy (118)
11/17/2003 3:22:45 AM

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

>>>>>>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:20:07 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
> 
>  Charles> If you are talking about a "timesharing system" (probably you
>  Charles> are referring to ITS), then there was *no* timesharing system
>  Charles> until the PDP-6. The PDP-1 *never* had a timesharing system
>  Charles> at MIT. The PDP-1 was a "single user" machine, and that is
>  Charles> how it ran when Spacewar! was played...
> 
>  Charles> My sources are _Hackers_, by Steven Levy, and a web page that
>  Charles> duplicates a Creative Computing article on Spacewar! written
>  Charles> by one of the three guys in the "Higham Institute"
> 
> There was indeed a PDP-1 timesharing system at MIT, and I believe
> it's where the "capabilities" protection concept was originated.
> 
> My sources are: myself (ITS hacker) and various friends of mine who
> had developed and used the PDP-1 timesharing system.  If you would
> like a more "legitimate" reference, I think that Jack Dennis published
> at least one paper about it: a CACM article entitled, "A multiuser
> computation facility for education and research".
> 
> Wasn't "Hackers" the book that spelled TECO "TICO", and Multics "MULTIX"?

Right on the first, I can't remember on the second (and I just read that 
section yesterday!!) Thanks for mentioning Jack Dennis - his name was on 
the edge of my memory.

Roy



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
0
millers (188)
11/17/2003 3:56:11 AM
"Jay Maynard" <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote in message
news:slrnbrgbm1.7v5.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx...
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:06:29 -0600, Randy McLaughlin <randy482@nospam.com>
> wrote:
> >Actually most CP/M users operated turn-key systems and had know idea what
> >CP/M was.
>
> This was only true of CP/M 2.2 and 3.0, with systems such as the Osborne 1
> and Kaypro. There were no real applience CP/M systems until that time.
CP/M
> 1.3, 1.4, and 2.0 users were pretty much all hackers, and had to be
familiar
> with the process of developing the BIOS. Some even had to toggle it in
with
> their computer's front panel switches.

Had you read my post (typo's and all you would have seen I stated that I
setup CP/M computers as turn-key systems.  The users had no knowledge of how
it worked they just used them as any other office appliance.

The fact is that there were hundreds of people like myself who did install
CP/M systems for people that couldn't for themselves.  In the computer world
in general there were always techies that made sure everyone that wanted a
computer and could afford one got one, IBM, DEC, Univac, Burroughs, and
everyone else had such teams world-wide for the larger markets.


0
randy38 (638)
11/17/2003 4:29:24 AM
"Charles Richmond" <richchas@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3FB83076.FD3101A4@comcast.net...
> That's because most folks in those days running CP/M were
> *not* "users"...but hobbyists and hackers.

Not around here (U.S.A., North East).  I was doing consulting at the time
and the systems we set up (North Stars, mostly) were definately for the use
of end users.  In most cases we put an index card on the front of the
machine telling them how to boot it and how to start their program.  Once
CP/M 2.2 came along we tended to just have them boot directly into the
application via a .SUB file.  I'm not clear from this distance in time if I
switched to .SUBs because CP/M before 2.2 didn't support it or some other
reason.

> "Users" is a derogatory term describing the "unwashed
> masses" that is often spelled as "lusers".

Again, not where I was working.  The users were the ones who paid the bills
and used the machines to actually do something world relevant (like print
bills, record vehicle maintainance, process tax reports) as opposed to what
we did at home (like invent new programming language and eek an extra
millisecond out of a disk seek).

> Now programmers have their own
> derogatory term..."script kiddies".

Your background for the period seems to have been hugely different from
mine.

    - Bill


0
Bill_Leary (360)
11/17/2003 4:39:44 AM
"Exegete" <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:3fb83275$1_5@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
>
> Randy McLaughlin wrote:
>
> > "Charles Richmond" <richchas@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:3FB83076.FD3101A4@comcast.net...
> >
> >>CBFalconer wrote:
> >>
> >>>Tim Shoppa wrote:
> >>>
> >>>... snip ...
> >>>
> >>>>What is distinctly "new" in CP/M as opposed to those other OS's
> >>>>is that it was very amenable to being ported to new machines with
> >>>>the only changes having to be made in the BIOS.  Some of the
> >>>>contemporary minicomputer OS's had fancy features like loadable
> >>>>device drivers, but when bringing CP/M up on a new machine those
> >>>>fancy features would've only gotten in the way. The simplicity
> >>>>and directness of the BIOS layer was a winner. True, few
> >>>>end-users knew about that layer, but it was important to CP/M's
> >>>>proliferation.
> >>>
> >>>I believe most "end users" of CP/M 1.3 and 1.4 were well aware of
> >>>the bios, and a non-trivial proportion of 2.2 users.  The
> >>>knowledge level was much higher than it is now, measured among
> >>>computer users.  Among the general population is another story.
> >>>
> >>
> >>That's because most folks in those days running CP/M were
> >>*not* "users"...but hobbyists and hackers. "Users" is a
> >>derogatory term describing the "unwashed masses" that is
> >>often spelled as "lusers". Now programmers have their own
> >>derogatory term..."script kiddies".
> >>
> >>--
> >>+----------------------------------------------------------------+
> >>|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
> >>+----------------------------------------------------------------+
> >
>
<snip all of my typos, just shows that I should concentrate on one task at a
time; I am glad that I went into computers and not teaching english>
> > I spent a great deal of time installing CP/M as a wordprocessor
>
> Wow! Most people had to use WordStar or PerfectWriter instead of the OS
> itself.

Actually for the earlier CP/M systems mentioned I usually used The Electric
Pencil with Imsai's VIO board when it was available (VDM before that or
SOL-20's with NS).  This was when Micro-Pro only had WordMaster (which would
go to never-never land when a person typed more than a screen full of text
before entering a carriage return).  I never liked PerfectWriter (by the
time I saw it I was already used to WordStar).

If you check you will find that today when the term word-processor is used
it usually means a piece of software, but at the time it meant a total
system of hardware/software dedicated to just one task (today we would
probably refer to them just as dedicated word-processor).  When I referred
to CP/M anyone can see I was referring to CP/M system which of course also
is a complete package of hardware/software (not dedicated necessarily to one
task).  Word-processors of the day started at $15k and went up, so when I
could deliver a system that was smaller, did more, and cost less people
loved buying them.  Of course not all of them were CP/M based, usually I set
up the SOL-20's with NSDOS.

Michael Shrayer originally had a cassette based Electric Pencil and he was
slow at coming out with a disk version; I disassembled the program and added
a NSDOS interface and sold it a year before he came out with his disk based
version (I sold the client the tape version and then charged them extra for
the conversion).

>
> for
> > businesses that not only didn't care what CP/M is but didn't want their
> > people to know what CP/M is.  They specifically wanted people to sit
down
> > and type and type and type.
> >
> > Computer hobbies were extremely important in making micros acceptable.
> >
> > Almost every computer is an appliance, just something for people to do a
> > job.
>
> Roy
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


0
randy38 (638)
11/17/2003 4:50:54 AM

Charles Richmond wrote:

> Exegete wrote:
> 
>>Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>>>    [snip...]        [snip...]        [snip...]
>>>
>>>If you are talking about a "timesharing system" (probably you
>>>are referring to ITS), then there was *no* timesharing system
>>>until the PDP-6. The PDP-1 *never* had a timesharing system
>>>at MIT. The PDP-1 was a "single user" machine, and that is
>>>how it ran when Spacewar! was played...
>>>
>>>If you are referring to the development of Spacewar!, it was
>>>developed on the PDP-1 beginning in December of 1961. (The
>>>PDP-1 was first installed at MIT in the Fall of 1961.) The
>>>basic Spacewar! game was unveiled in February of 1962.
>>>
>>>My sources are _Hackers_, by Steven Levy, and a web page that
>>>duplicates a Creative Computing article on Spacewar! written
>>>by one of the three guys in the "Higham Institute" at:
>>
>>I suggest you reread Hackers by Steven Levy, because he did mention a
>>time sharing OS for the PDP-1.
>>
> 
> Although it has been a while since I read it...I have read 
> that book at least half a dozen times. I *really* like it.
> I am on my second paperback copy...because my first copy
> fell apart.
> 
> Can you give me a page reference about the BBN PDP-1 
> timesharing OS???

On page 121 of my copy:

They pointed at CTSS, multics, even Jack Dennis' more amiable system on 
the PDP-1, as examples of the slower, less powerful access one would be 
stuck with when one shared the computer with others using it at the same 
time.

Roy
> 
> --
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+
> |   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
0
millers (188)
11/17/2003 5:00:57 AM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:50:37 GMT
CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:

C> I believe most "end users" of CP/M 1.3 and 1.4 were well aware of
C> the bios, and a non-trivial proportion of 2.2 users.

	I think rather more were aware of the more obscure Wordstar 
keystrokes, the inner workings of Mailmerge and which daisy wheel to use
when. At least in my neck of the woods there were a *lot* of CP/M and MP/M
systems sold to small businesses with Wordstar, some kind of accounts
package and usually something specific to their business. Hobbyists
mostly couldn't afford CP/M and had to content themselves with Atoms,
ZX8*s and similar boxes.

-- 
C:>WIN                                      |     Directable Mirrors
The computer obeys and wins.                |A Better Way To Focus The Sun
You lose and Bill collects.                 |  licenses available - see:
                                            |   http://www.sohara.org/
0
steveo (475)
11/17/2003 7:31:13 AM
Bill Leary wrote:
> "Charles Richmond" <richchas@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> > That's because most folks in those days running CP/M were
> > *not* "users"...but hobbyists and hackers.
> 
> Not around here (U.S.A., North East).  I was doing consulting at
> the time and the systems we set up (North Stars, mostly) were
> definately for the use of end users.  In most cases we put an
> index card on the front of the machine telling them how to boot
> it and how to start their program.  Once CP/M 2.2 came along we
> tended to just have them boot directly into the application via
> a .SUB file.  I'm not clear from this distance in time if I
> switched to .SUBs because CP/M before 2.2 didn't support it or
> some other reason.

Same physical area.  I used my own hardware, which was also used
for embedded machinery in medical testing (its primary purpose). 
The development machine had a double SSSD 8" drive (which cost
over $2000 for the first one) and CP/M 1.4.  I later revised to
CP/M 2.2, and about that time WordStar appeared, so we bought some
more disk drives and equipped several secretaries with the system
and an Epson MX80 printer.  They were much more hand-holding
trouble than the embedded machines, which ran on ROM programs
only.  One secretary in particular (she was about 60) had great
problems adapting, and I never really figured out how to adapt the
system to her.

I did eventually migrate those secretarial systems to my own
DOSPLUS 2.5, which allowed me to protect systems programs against
ham-fisted actions, etc. and had much better submit facilities. 
All available on my site, below.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

0
cbfalconer (19194)
11/17/2003 9:48:24 AM
cstacy@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

> Wasn't "Hackers" the book that spelled TECO "TICO", and Multics
> "MULTIX"?

Yes, but it was corrected in later editions. I believe this was due to
Levy having used tape interviews when we was doing research for the
book.

-- 
MC, http://hack.org/mc/
0
mc176 (5)
11/17/2003 10:59:37 AM
In article <3FB83076.FD3101A4@comcast.net>,
   Charles Richmond <richchas@comcast.net> wrote:
>CBFalconer wrote:
>> 
>> Tim Shoppa wrote:
>> >
>> ... snip ...
>> >
>> > What is distinctly "new" in CP/M as opposed to those other OS's
>> > is that it was very amenable to being ported to new machines with
>> > the only changes having to be made in the BIOS.  Some of the
>> > contemporary minicomputer OS's had fancy features like loadable
>> > device drivers, but when bringing CP/M up on a new machine those
>> > fancy features would've only gotten in the way. The simplicity
>> > and directness of the BIOS layer was a winner. True, few
>> > end-users knew about that layer, but it was important to CP/M's
>> > proliferation.
>> 
>> I believe most "end users" of CP/M 1.3 and 1.4 were well aware of
>> the bios, and a non-trivial proportion of 2.2 users.  The
>> knowledge level was much higher than it is now, measured among
>> computer users.  Among the general population is another story.
>> 
>That's because most folks in those days running CP/M were 
>*not* "users"...but hobbyists and hackers. "Users" is a
>derogatory term describing the "unwashed masses" that is
>often spelled as "lusers". Now programmers have their own
>derogatory term..."script kiddies".

Sigh!  Those lusers were our bread and butter.  Providing them
a way to get work done without invoking a wrestling match with
the OS helped us develop a damned good operating system.
A lot of those lusers grew up to be big bit gods.  That was a goal
of selling a -10 to universities; training our future generation.
Some of us realized that those lusers were going to be the
check signers when gear was going to be bought from us in 10 years.

/BAH
0
jmfbahciv (721)
11/17/2003 12:30:58 PM
In article <3FB83076.FD3101A4@comcast.net>,
Charles Richmond  <richmond@nospam.plano.net> wrote:
>CBFalconer wrote:
>> 
>> Tim Shoppa wrote:
>> >
>> ... snip ...
>> >
>> > What is distinctly "new" in CP/M as opposed to those other OS's
>> > is that it was very amenable to being ported to new machines with
>> > the only changes having to be made in the BIOS.  Some of the
>> > contemporary minicomputer OS's had fancy features like loadable
>> > device drivers, but when bringing CP/M up on a new machine those
>> > fancy features would've only gotten in the way. The simplicity
>> > and directness of the BIOS layer was a winner. True, few
>> > end-users knew about that layer, but it was important to CP/M's
>> > proliferation.
>> 
>> I believe most "end users" of CP/M 1.3 and 1.4 were well aware of
>> the bios, and a non-trivial proportion of 2.2 users.  The
>> knowledge level was much higher than it is now, measured among
>> computer users.  Among the general population is another story.
>> 
>That's because most folks in those days running CP/M were 
>*not* "users"...but hobbyists and hackers. "Users" is a
>derogatory term describing the "unwashed masses" that is
>often spelled as "lusers". Now programmers have their own
>derogatory term..."script kiddies".

No, the script kiddie is not an end-user. The Script Kiddie is
the sorcerers apprentics to programming. Looking at the spell book
and invoking spells without understanding them.

-- mrr
0
mrr6 (7)
11/17/2003 12:58:14 PM
In article <6lgapb.nri1.ln@via.reistad.priv.no>,
Morten Reistad  <mrr@re1stad.pr1v.n0> wrote:
	...
>No, the script kiddie is not an end-user. The Script Kiddie is
>the sorcerers apprentics to programming. Looking at the spell book
>and invoking spells without understanding them.

And this differs from 99+% of users how...? (:-).

Craig
0
news184 (104)
11/17/2003 2:42:15 PM
In article <3fb8de47$0$75900$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>
news@finseth.com (Craig A. Finseth) writes:

>In article <6lgapb.nri1.ln@via.reistad.priv.no>,
>Morten Reistad  <mrr@re1stad.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>       ...
>>No, the script kiddie is not an end-user. The Script Kiddie is
>>the sorcerers apprentics to programming. Looking at the spell book
>>and invoking spells without understanding them.
>
>And this differs from 99+% of users how...? (:-).

Script kiddies are programmer-wannabes.  Ordinary users don't wanna be.

--
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

0
cgibbs (332)
11/17/2003 5:52:25 PM
cstacy@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

> There was indeed a PDP-1 timesharing system at MIT, and I believe
> it's where the "capabilities" protection concept was originated.

I noticed that Stanford keeps a text by John McCarthy where he
mentions both the PDP-1 timesharing system at MIT and the system at
BBN. You can find the text here:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/timesharing/timesharing.html

-- 
MC, http://hack.org/mc/
0
mc176 (5)
11/17/2003 8:21:56 PM
"Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
> 
>       [snip...]       [snip...]         [snip...]
> 
> Wasn't "Hackers" the book that spelled TECO "TICO", 
> and Multics "MULTIX"?
>
Nooooo, that was *not* _Hackers_. IMHO _Hackers_ was a fairly
well-done book. The author interviewed many of the principles
and listed notes and reference material in the back. There
were simplifications of some of the concepts, but that could
*not* be helped in a book aimed at the general reader. IMHO.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
0
richchas2 (320)
11/18/2003 12:16:24 AM
MC wrote:
> 
> cstacy@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> 
> > There was indeed a PDP-1 timesharing system at MIT, and I believe
> > it's where the "capabilities" protection concept was originated.
> 
> I noticed that Stanford keeps a text by John McCarthy where he
> mentions both the PDP-1 timesharing system at MIT and the system at
> BBN. You can find the text here:
> 
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/timesharing/timesharing.html
> 
The web site:

	<http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/>

is Dr. John McCarthy's home page, which he actively maintains.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
0
richchas2 (320)
11/18/2003 12:21:12 AM
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:16:24 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:

 Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
 >> 
 >> [snip...]       [snip...]         [snip...]
 >> 
 >> Wasn't "Hackers" the book that spelled TECO "TICO", 
 >> and Multics "MULTIX"?
 >> 

 Charles> Nooooo, that was *not* _Hackers_. IMHO _Hackers_ was a fairly
 Charles> well-done book. The author interviewed many of the principles
 Charles> and listed notes and reference material in the back.

Oh, that's odd; I could have sworn that 
it was in Chapter 6, on pages 106 and 109.
0
cstacy (118)
11/18/2003 1:59:44 AM
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In article <3FB83076.FD3101A4@comcast.net>,
>    Charles Richmond <richchas@comcast.net> wrote:
> >CBFalconer wrote:
> >>
> >> Tim Shoppa wrote:
> >> >
> >> ... snip ...
> >> >
> >> > What is distinctly "new" in CP/M as opposed to those other OS's
> >> > is that it was very amenable to being ported to new machines with
> >> > the only changes having to be made in the BIOS.  Some of the
> >> > contemporary minicomputer OS's had fancy features like loadable
> >> > device drivers, but when bringing CP/M up on a new machine those
> >> > fancy features would've only gotten in the way. The simplicity
> >> > and directness of the BIOS layer was a winner. True, few
> >> > end-users knew about that layer, but it was important to CP/M's
> >> > proliferation.
> >>
> >> I believe most "end users" of CP/M 1.3 and 1.4 were well aware of
> >> the bios, and a non-trivial proportion of 2.2 users.  The
> >> knowledge level was much higher than it is now, measured among
> >> computer users.  Among the general population is another story.
> >>
> >That's because most folks in those days running CP/M were
> >*not* "users"...but hobbyists and hackers. "Users" is a
> >derogatory term describing the "unwashed masses" that is
> >often spelled as "lusers". Now programmers have their own
> >derogatory term..."script kiddies".
> 
> Sigh!  Those lusers were our bread and butter.  Providing them
> a way to get work done without invoking a wrestling match with
> the OS helped us develop a damned good operating system.
> A lot of those lusers grew up to be big bit gods.  That was a goal
> of selling a -10 to universities; training our future generation.
> Some of us realized that those lusers were going to be the
> check signers when gear was going to be bought from us in 10 years.
> 
Anyone can learn a modicum about the system and lift themselves
out of being a "luser". IMHO 99.9% of those using computers now
*never* do this... I have *no* churlish objection to providing
a way to get work done. It is *very* hard to help the current
crop of "lusers", because they are *deep* in luser-hood.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
0
richchas2 (320)
11/18/2003 2:17:02 AM
"Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
> 
> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:16:24 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
> 
>  Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
>  >>
>  >> [snip...]       [snip...]         [snip...]
>  >>
>  >> Wasn't "Hackers" the book that spelled TECO "TICO",
>  >> and Multics "MULTIX"?
>  >>
> 
>  Charles> Nooooo, that was *not* _Hackers_. IMHO _Hackers_ was a fairly
>  Charles> well-done book. The author interviewed many of the principles
>  Charles> and listed notes and reference material in the back.
> 
> Oh, that's odd; I could have sworn that
> it was in Chapter 6, on pages 106 and 109.
>
You must have an *earlier* printing of the book than I
do. In my book, Chapter 6 *starts* on page 108, and
pages 106 and 109 have *no* mention of TECO or Multics.


--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
0
richchas2 (320)
11/18/2003 2:41:03 AM
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:41:03 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:

 Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
 >> 
 >> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:16:24 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
 >> 
 Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
 >> >>
 >> >> [snip...]       [snip...]         [snip...]
 >> >>
 >> >> Wasn't "Hackers" the book that spelled TECO "TICO",
 >> >> and Multics "MULTIX"?
 >> >>
 >> 
 Charles> Nooooo, that was *not* _Hackers_. IMHO _Hackers_ was a fairly
 Charles> well-done book. The author interviewed many of the principles
 Charles> and listed notes and reference material in the back.
 >> 
 >> Oh, that's odd; I could have sworn that
 >> it was in Chapter 6, on pages 106 and 109.
 >> 
 Charles> You must have an *earlier* printing of the book than I
 Charles> do. In my book, Chapter 6 *starts* on page 108, and
 Charles> pages 106 and 109 have *no* mention of TECO or Multics.

How does it spell it on the pages that do?
Maybe there was a lated edition of the book where someone
corrected those really glaring sloppy embarassing mistakes.

0
cstacy (118)
11/18/2003 3:15:15 AM

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:41:03 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
> 
> 
>  Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
>  >> 
>  >> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:16:24 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
>  >> 
>  Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
>  >> >>
>  >> >> [snip...]       [snip...]         [snip...]
>  >> >>
>  >> >> Wasn't "Hackers" the book that spelled TECO "TICO",
>  >> >> and Multics "MULTIX"?
>  >> >>
>  >> 
>  Charles> Nooooo, that was *not* _Hackers_. IMHO _Hackers_ was a fairly
>  Charles> well-done book. The author interviewed many of the principles
>  Charles> and listed notes and reference material in the back.
>  >> 
>  >> Oh, that's odd; I could have sworn that
>  >> it was in Chapter 6, on pages 106 and 109.
>  >> 
>  Charles> You must have an *earlier* printing of the book than I
>  Charles> do. In my book, Chapter 6 *starts* on page 108, and
>  Charles> pages 106 and 109 have *no* mention of TECO or Multics.
> 
> How does it spell it on the pages that do?
> Maybe there was a lated edition of the book where someone
> corrected those really glaring sloppy embarassing mistakes.

My copy spells TECO and Multics as such.

Roy

> 



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
0
millers (188)
11/18/2003 3:47:22 AM
"Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
> 
> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:41:03 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
> 
>  Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
>  >>
>  >> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:16:24 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
>  >>
>  Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
>  >> >>
>  >> >> [snip...]       [snip...]         [snip...]
>  >> >>
>  >> >> Wasn't "Hackers" the book that spelled TECO "TICO",
>  >> >> and Multics "MULTIX"?
>  >> >>
>  >>
>  Charles> Nooooo, that was *not* _Hackers_. IMHO _Hackers_ was a fairly
>  Charles> well-done book. The author interviewed many of the principles
>  Charles> and listed notes and reference material in the back.
>  >>
>  >> Oh, that's odd; I could have sworn that
>  >> it was in Chapter 6, on pages 106 and 109.
>  >>
>  Charles> You must have an *earlier* printing of the book than I
>  Charles> do. In my book, Chapter 6 *starts* on page 108, and
>  Charles> pages 106 and 109 have *no* mention of TECO or Multics.
> 
> How does it spell it on the pages that do?
> Maybe there was a lated edition of the book where someone
> corrected those really glaring sloppy embarassing mistakes.
>
I was familiar with TECO and Multics (at least the spellings
thereof) *before* I first read _Hackers_. As I recall, there
were *no* such mistakes in my copy...and I believe that I
would have noticed had it been muffed that way.

(I am sitting here with my paperback copy of _Hackers_ in
hand...but I can *not* 'grep' dead trees...)

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
0
richchas2 (320)
11/18/2003 6:59:32 AM
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 06:59:32 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:

 Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
 >> 
 >> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:41:03 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
 >> 
 Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
 >> >>
 >> >> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:16:24 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
 >> >>
 Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
 >> >> >>
 >> >> >> [snip...]       [snip...]         [snip...]
 >> >> >>
 >> >> >> Wasn't "Hackers" the book that spelled TECO "TICO",
 >> >> >> and Multics "MULTIX"?
 >> >> >>
 >> >>
 Charles> Nooooo, that was *not* _Hackers_. IMHO _Hackers_ was a fairly
 Charles> well-done book. The author interviewed many of the principles
 Charles> and listed notes and reference material in the back.
 >> >>
 >> >> Oh, that's odd; I could have sworn that
 >> >> it was in Chapter 6, on pages 106 and 109.
 >> >>
 Charles> You must have an *earlier* printing of the book than I
 Charles> do. In my book, Chapter 6 *starts* on page 108, and
 Charles> pages 106 and 109 have *no* mention of TECO or Multics.
 >> 
 >> How does it spell it on the pages that do?
 >> Maybe there was a lated edition of the book where someone
 >> corrected those really glaring sloppy embarassing mistakes.
 >> 
 Charles> I was familiar with TECO and Multics (at least the spellings
 Charles> thereof) *before* I first read _Hackers_. As I recall, there
 Charles> were *no* such mistakes in my copy...and I believe that I
 Charles> would have noticed had it been muffed that way.

 Charles> (I am sitting here with my paperback copy of _Hackers_ in
 Charles> hand...but I can *not* 'grep' dead trees...)

The mistakes are in the edition I have.  My impression at the time
(having been at the MIT lab he was writing about) was disappointment
that the author wasn't very intent on getting details right. and had also
bought into a certain amount of fiction involving Richard Stallman.
0
cstacy (118)
11/18/2003 7:43:01 AM

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 06:59:32 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
> 
> 
>  Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
>  >> 
>  >> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:41:03 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
>  >> 
>  Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
>  >> >>
>  >> >> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:16:24 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
>  >> >>
>  Charles> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
>  >> >> >>
>  >> >> >> [snip...]       [snip...]         [snip...]
>  >> >> >>
>  >> >> >> Wasn't "Hackers" the book that spelled TECO "TICO",
>  >> >> >> and Multics "MULTIX"?
>  >> >> >>
>  >> >>
>  Charles> Nooooo, that was *not* _Hackers_. IMHO _Hackers_ was a fairly
>  Charles> well-done book. The author interviewed many of the principles
>  Charles> and listed notes and reference material in the back.
>  >> >>
>  >> >> Oh, that's odd; I could have sworn that
>  >> >> it was in Chapter 6, on pages 106 and 109.
>  >> >>
>  Charles> You must have an *earlier* printing of the book than I
>  Charles> do. In my book, Chapter 6 *starts* on page 108, and
>  Charles> pages 106 and 109 have *no* mention of TECO or Multics.
>  >> 
>  >> How does it spell it on the pages that do?
>  >> Maybe there was a lated edition of the book where someone
>  >> corrected those really glaring sloppy embarassing mistakes.
>  >> 
>  Charles> I was familiar with TECO and Multics (at least the spellings
>  Charles> thereof) *before* I first read _Hackers_. As I recall, there
>  Charles> were *no* such mistakes in my copy...and I believe that I
>  Charles> would have noticed had it been muffed that way.
> 
>  Charles> (I am sitting here with my paperback copy of _Hackers_ in
>  Charles> hand...but I can *not* 'grep' dead trees...)
> 
> The mistakes are in the edition I have.  My impression at the time
> (having been at the MIT lab he was writing about) was disappointment
> that the author wasn't very intent on getting details right. and had also
> bought into a certain amount of fiction involving Richard Stallman.

I'll byte - what fiction concerning Stallman?

Roy



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
0
millers (188)
11/18/2003 2:25:03 PM
cstacy@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

> Wasn't "Hackers" the book that spelled TECO "TICO", and Multics "MULTIX"?

The only book I recall doing that was _Out of the Inner Circle_, a cracker-
wannabe brag-book which I put down when I got to the part where he referred to
SIMTEL20 as "some kind of VMS system", IIRC.

-- 
Rich Alderson					    | /"\ ASCII ribbon     |
news@alderson.users.panix.com			    | \ / campaign against |
"You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime."    |  x  HTML mail and    |
			 --Death, of the Endless    | / \ postings         |
0
news83 (377)
11/18/2003 7:54:47 PM
>  >>
>  >> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:16:24 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:

>  Charles> Nooooo, that was *not* _Hackers_. IMHO _Hackers_ was a fairly
>  Charles> well-done book. The author interviewed many of the principles
>  Charles> and listed notes and reference material in the back.

Figures that Richmond would say something like this.

The idiot who wrote ''Hackers'' was obviously a gamer
and, as such, mostly interested in Apple/Atari/Commodore

He actually said ''Gates wrote the IBM operating system''

He never had clue ONE about the FIRST computing
paradigm, the one in which 'computers' were mostly
TOOLS for doing WORK. So much for DEC, IBM, et al.

In this, the SECOND computing paradigm, computers
are mostly (95%?) TOYS used for entertainment.

CP/M fits into the first one, but not the second.

Most authors completely fail to grasp that paradigm
shift. And therefore, fail to see the coming THIRD.


Bill

Oh, the quote about Gates? - P.358 of the paperback
0
Bill3039 (326)
11/20/2003 3:18:50 AM
<bill@sunsouthwest.com> wrote in message
news:3FBC329A.358F@sunsouthwest.com...
> >  >>
> >  >> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:16:24 GMT, Charles Richmond
("Charles") writes:
>
> >  Charles> Nooooo, that was *not* _Hackers_. IMHO _Hackers_ was a
fairly
> >  Charles> well-done book. The author interviewed many of the
principles
> >  Charles> and listed notes and reference material in the back.
>
> Figures that Richmond would say something like this.
>
> The idiot who wrote ''Hackers'' was obviously a gamer
> and, as such, mostly interested in Apple/Atari/Commodore

Levy is a fan of Apple computers, see for example his book
"Insanely Great" on the creation of the Macintosh.

> He actually said ''Gates wrote the IBM operating system''
   [snip...]
> Oh, the quote about Gates? - P.358 of the paperback

The copyright for Hackers is 1984, three years after the
introduction of the PC. Was it common knowledge in
1984 that Microsoft bought Q-DOS from Seattle Computer
Products?

++Don
e-mail: it's not not, it's hot.


0
11/20/2003 4:05:10 AM
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:18:50 -0600
"bill@sunsouthwest.com" <bill@sunsouthwest.com> wrote:

BC> Most authors completely fail to grasp that paradigm
BC> shift. And therefore, fail to see the coming THIRD.

	The one heralded by things like WebTV, TiVo and 20GB MP3 jukeboxes ?

-- 
C:>WIN                                      |     Directable Mirrors
The computer obeys and wins.                |A Better Way To Focus The Sun
You lose and Bill collects.                 |  licenses available - see:
                                            |   http://www.sohara.org/
0
steveo (475)
11/20/2003 6:45:12 AM
"bill@sunsouthwest.com" wrote:
> 
> >  >>
> >  >> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:16:24 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
> 
> >  Charles> Nooooo, that was *not* _Hackers_. IMHO _Hackers_ was a fairly
> >  Charles> well-done book. The author interviewed many of the principles
> >  Charles> and listed notes and reference material in the back.
> 
> Figures that Richmond would say something like this.
> 
Figures that kBill at Sunsouthwest would strike out at me
personally...
>
> The idiot who wrote ''Hackers'' was obviously a gamer
> and, as such, mostly interested in Apple/Atari/Commodore
> 
I have read the book many times, and I did *not* get that
idea at all. The book is done in *three* sections. One is
the computer hackers at MIT from around 1960 through 1972.
The second is the personal computer revolution beginning in
the mid-1970's. The third is about the gamers from the late
1970's to the early 1980's.
>
> He actually said ''Gates wrote the IBM operating system''
> 
Well, there *are* mistakes in the _Hackers_ book.
I think that on balance it is done well, though.
>
> He never had clue ONE about the FIRST computing
> paradigm, the one in which 'computers' were mostly
> TOOLS for doing WORK. So much for DEC, IBM, et al.
> 
The first computers were too clumsy to be considered
TOOLS IMHO. The early computer workers had to spend
time just getting the machine to do anything useful.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
0
richchas2 (320)
11/20/2003 9:06:35 AM

Charles Richmond wrote:

> > The idiot who wrote ''Hackers'' was obviously a gamer
> > and, as such, mostly interested in Apple/Atari/Commodore
> >
> I have read the book many times, and I did *not* get that
> idea at all. The book is done in *three* sections. One is
> the computer hackers at MIT from around 1960 through 1972.
> The second is the personal computer revolution beginning in
> the mid-1970's. The third is about the gamers from the late
> 1970's to the early 1980's.

I rather enjoyed it too.  And there were the three distinct
sections.  I might argue with the selection of topic for the
third section as to whether or not some other topic would
be more "important" to cover in that time frame but that's
just a matter of opinion.  Generally the book was well
done and examined an area not previously "made public".

> Well, there *are* mistakes in the _Hackers_ book.
> I think that on balance it is done well, though.

Again agreed.

> > He never had clue ONE about the FIRST computing
> > paradigm, the one in which 'computers' were mostly
> > TOOLS for doing WORK. So much for DEC, IBM, et al.
> >
> The first computers were too clumsy to be considered
> TOOLS IMHO. The early computer workers had to spend
> time just getting the machine to do anything useful.

Can't agree here.  Stone axes are useful tools and one
can argue that without them, nothing we know would
have followed.  From the beginning, people usually
bought computers to address some significant problem
that would have been more costly to address with
previously existing technology at whatever the technology
level was at that time.  The only difference is that the
cost of early machines limited those areas which could
be effectively addressed.  I still argue that Whirlwind
was the first "mini computer" as the applications for
which it was originally intended, "real time control" was
first cost effectively addressed with early mini computers,
and, of course, it was a 16 bit machine back when most
were 30+ bits.  That doesn't mean that Whirlwind wasn't
a success as if nothing else, it pointed the way.  And it
did function as expected.  Thus, early computers had the
"same functionality" as stone axes.  As tools they got us
headed toward where we are today.

Chris
AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE
$$


0
jchausler (1)
11/20/2003 4:14:41 PM
jchausler wrote:
> 
> Charles Richmond wrote:
> 
> >
> >    [snip...]         [snip...]         [snip...]
> >
> > The first computers were too clumsy to be considered
> > TOOLS IMHO. The early computer workers had to spend
> > time just getting the machine to do anything useful.
> 
> Can't agree here.  Stone axes are useful tools and one
> can argue that without them, nothing we know would
> have followed.  From the beginning, people usually
> bought computers to address some significant problem
> that would have been more costly to address with
> previously existing technology at whatever the technology
> level was at that time.  The only difference is that the
> cost of early machines limited those areas which could
> be effectively addressed.  
>
Yes, I agree that computers are *tools* in that sense. 
Anything created or adapted by mankind to help in doing
things...would be considered a "tool". 

My point was that computers at that time were *not* 
something that you could just pick up and use, like
a hammer...or like PC's (generic) are today. Now, 
a reasonably intelligent third grader can use a
computer. Back circa 1945 through at least 1960,
using a computer required a *lot* of specialized
knowledge. At that time, one had to write the
programs...if one wanted the machine to do useful
things.

> I still argue that Whirlwind
> was the first "mini computer" as the applications for
> which it was originally intended, "real time control" was
> first cost effectively addressed with early mini computers,
> and, of course, it was a 16 bit machine back when most
> were 30+ bits.  That doesn't mean that Whirlwind wasn't
> a success as if nothing else, it pointed the way.  And it
> did function as expected.  Thus, early computers had the
> "same functionality" as stone axes.  As tools they got us
> headed toward where we are today.
> 
IIRC, Whirlwind was *originally* begun to do one thing, and
then adapted to something else...when the funding ran out on
the first project. ISTR that Jay Forrester was the mastermind
behing that project...

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
0
richchas2 (320)
11/20/2003 9:23:33 PM
Funny you should ask!

This is actually a week 1 discussion question in one of the classes I teach.

Operating systems, and the functions they provide, have evolved. Early
operating systems had far less functionality than today's systems, just as
modern computers can do more than our favorite old classics.

I have striven to find a universal definition of what an operating system
is, and here is what I have come up with:

"An operating system is a program whose function is to run other programs".

In order to do this, an operating system has to have certain functions: it
has to have a way of storing and recalling those other programs. In most
cases, this is a file system, or some other means of I/O. An early batch
system, for example, may just have a card reader and printer and no disks
for data. The system that ran the machine in this case would still be an
operating system.

DOS and CP/M do not support many of the features that modern O/S provide,
like interrupts, multi-tasking and so on, but under this definition would
still qualify as operating systems.

Many people regard operating systems like CP/M as "monitors" rather than
true operating systems. That's fine. Many of the ROM-based monitors do have
the ability to run other programs. However, that is not their primary
function. Instead, they're mostly used to load only the operating system or
to do low-level hardware and software diagnostics and other maintenance
functions.

If you wish to call these monitors operating systems, you can, but they're
not very good operating systems.

Implicit in the definition above is a metric for the quality or "goodness"
of an operating system. If the function is to run other programs, then the
more programs the operating system can run the better an operating system
is. The quantity may be the number and variety of programs available for a
given platform is one measure of "goodness", another would be the number of
programs a computer can run at one time or in a unit amout of time. Both
work.

Nobody writes BIOS-native applications for the PC. DOS, on the other hand,
is very popular. So PC BIOS isn't an operating system, unless you want to
count UNIX, Linux, DOS, Windows, CPM/86 and the odd virus as a comprehensive
catalog of application software. So a BIOS is not an operating system.

And that's it.

-- 
George N. George
University of Phoenix Online Faculty
gsquared@email.uophx.edu
georgesquared@yahoo.com
(201) 390-9180 (cell)


"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0311111802.33df304f@posting.google.com...
> rosssimpson@optusnet.com.au (Ross Simpson) wrote
>
> > It has been shown though that other disk formats are possible to
> > develop under CP/M, since one of the copies I have of it is used to
> > access more drives & differently formatted disks.
>
> Any program can bypass the BDOS and get to the raw drive either though
> BIOS or directly by bit-banging the hardware.  Then it can do anything
> it wishes in the way of strange formats.
>
> > So what's this thing I hear now which states that CP/M isn't an OS?
>
> Whether it is or not depends entirely on what the term 'Operating
> System' is defined as.  There would have to be some minimum
> requirements of course.
>
> > If CP/M isn't a OS, then DOS isn't either! ;-)
>
> I's agree to that, certainly.
>
> > But of course I could be mistaken, since Alley Cat is a game which
> > runs itself from Bootup.
>
> Exactly, it doesn't need to be an OS, or have an OS, in order to boot
> an run.


0
vze337gt (1)
11/29/2003 1:23:45 AM
"G. Nicholas George" <vze337gt@verizon.net> wrote 

> cases, this is a file system, or some other means of I/O. An early batch
> system, for example, may just have a card reader and printer and no disks
> for data. The system that ran the machine in this case would still be an
> operating system.

Having operated an ICL 1901 I know that at switchon with a clear
memory there is not even a bootstrap loader. A sequence with 24
switches and a rotary switch will load 3 instructions. This then will
'load and run another program'.

Those '3 instructions' seem to fulfil your minimal requirement but are
they an 'operating system' ?

To me an Operating System must be a system to _operate_ the machine.
To replace what operators would otherwsie have to do.

In the case of file storage with tapes the operators had to write a
label and stick it on the tape to indicate what it is, when it was
written, and to also log this in the library catalogue so that it can
be found.  A 'Tape Operating System' would do that.

Similarly for disks, initially the operator would have to write down
when disks were used and for what.  They would have to allocate space
on the disks for the files by manually creating the directory entries
(I recall doing this) using a utility.  A 'Disk Operating System'
would do this.  CP/M does this (except the when part).

For batches of work the operator would have to read the schedule and
sequence the programs, running them by typing in a command with the
program name:

     LOAD #TAPE
     GO 21

the operator would also have to ensure that the correct deck of cards
was ready for the program and the correct stationary was in the
printer, the disks were loaded and the tapes to be used available.

A 'Batch Operating System' would do that.  By spooling in all the job
details and card decks, linking the tapes and disks to the jobs and
adding specs for the printouts the OS would decide the sequence of
programs and run them linking the spooled card decks and asking for
tapes and disks.

> DOS and CP/M do not support many of the features that modern O/S provide,
> like interrupts, multi-tasking and so on, but under this definition would
> still qualify as operating systems.

The essential feature of an "Operating System' is that it replaces
what would otherwise be done by an operator.  Interrupts and
Multi-Tasking (context switching) is marginal in that respect.  DOS
and CP/M are certainly DOSes. As it is the operator that has to load
each program by typing in a command line then it doesn't count as a
'Batch OS'.
 
> Many people regard operating systems like CP/M as "monitors" rather than
> true operating systems. 

For many things CP/M only provides a 'monitor like' functionality. 
For Disks it provides a DOS (called the BDOS).

> That's fine. Many of the ROM-based monitors do have
> the ability to run other programs. However, that is not their primary
> function. Instead, they're mostly used to load only the operating system or
> to do low-level hardware and software diagnostics and other maintenance
> functions.

That's it.  CP/M's CCP and DOS Command.COM has the ability to run
other programs, or even sequences of them.  But they don't replace the
operator, it is the operator that has to specify what is to be done.

> If you wish to call these monitors operating systems, you can, but they're
> not very good operating systems.

They are not OSes at all.  But that is the confusion. Because you
started with 'an OS loads and runs programs' (which is what operators
and Batch OSes do) then you found that monitors can do that too.

The difference is that with a monitor the _operator_ must load and run
the program.  With a [Batch] _Operating_ system it is the OS that
decides what is to be loaded and run.

> Implicit in the definition above is a metric for the quality or "goodness"
> of an operating system. If the function is to run other programs, then the
> more programs the operating system can run the better an operating system
> is. The quantity may be the number and variety of programs available for a
> given platform is one measure of "goodness", another would be the number of
> programs a computer can run at one time or in a unit amout of time. Both
> work.

Yes, that is true too, for the subset of 'OS' that is related to
scheduling workload.  The quality of a DOS might also be realated to
how it deals with multiple diverse requests: the number of concurrent
files, the ability to share and lock records, the speed using caching,
delayed writes and look aheads.

The quality of a TOS may include the ability to run a tape library and
automatically fetch and load tapes.

For many things the actual meaning has been lost or drifted.  As new
people came into computing they were vaugely told that the 'Operating
System' did that and built up an image of what an OS was or was not
without any real idea of what was meant.

Similarly with 'Mainframe'.  People used the term 'Mainframe computer'
without reference to its actual meaning.
0
riplin (4127)
11/29/2003 7:20:46 PM
On 29 Nov 2003 11:20:46 -0800, Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>"G. Nicholas George" <vze337gt@verizon.net> wrote 
>
>> cases, this is a file system, or some other means of I/O. An early batch
>> system, for example, may just have a card reader and printer and no disks
>> for data. The system that ran the machine in this case would still be an
>> operating system.
>
>Having operated an ICL 1901 I know that at switchon with a clear
>memory there is not even a bootstrap loader. A sequence with 24
>switches and a rotary switch will load 3 instructions. This then will
>'load and run another program'.

	This is slightly off topic, but I once worked at Data General and
part of 'the thing' was to learn how to toggle the bootloader into the Novas
we worked on using the toggle switches. I never thought of it at the time,
but now it does: Given that the required commands were so simple, and so few
(only two or three instructions), why couldn't this've been coded into a ROM
such that, when you turned the thing on and were ready to load and run the
job of the moment, you could push a green button that would cause the ROM to
be loaded into mem and executed? 

-- 
jimbo@sonic.net 

"There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary, and those who don't."

0
jimbo9885 (64)
12/1/2003 9:34:21 PM
"Jim Bianchi" <jimbo@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbsncut.knm.jimbo@bolt.sonic.net...
> This is slightly off topic, but I once worked at Data General and
> part of 'the thing' was to learn how to toggle the bootloader into the
Novas
> we worked on using the toggle switches. I never thought of it at the time,
> but now it does: Given that the required commands were so simple, and so
few
> (only two or three instructions), why couldn't this've been coded into a
ROM
> such that, when you turned the thing on and were ready to load and run the
> job of the moment, you could push a green button that would cause the ROM
to
> be loaded into mem and executed?

It would have required additional circuitry, adding cost and complexity and
using up
space on the boards.  The Nova was build to very tight cost targets and
those early
boards were awfully crowded, mostly by components, but also by the desire to
keep
the layer count as low as possible both to get high yields and lower cost
boards.

Even so, it was available as an option fairly early on, and became a
standard feature
in later models, when the convenience came to outweigh the costs.

An excellent reference on the Nova series can be found at:

    http://users.rcn.com/crfriend/museum/inven.shtml

Working through the list of Nova's and Eclipses from the top is quite
interesting
and, as far as I can tell, quite accurate.  I worked with Novas and Nova
clones
(some built by the company I worked for) for many years and the vast
majority
of this site rings true.

There's been some discussion of Nova's, over on alt.folklore.computers of
late.

    - Bill


0
Bill_Leary (360)
12/1/2003 9:58:56 PM
"Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message
news:AQOyb.186179$Dw6.708800@attbi_s02...
> "Jim Bianchi" <jimbo@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbsncut.knm.jimbo@bolt.sonic.net...
> > This is slightly off topic, but I once worked at Data General and
> > part of 'the thing' was to learn how to toggle the bootloader into the
> Novas
> > we worked on using the toggle switches. I never thought of it at the
time,
> > but now it does: Given that the required commands were so simple, and so
> few
> > (only two or three instructions), why couldn't this've been coded into a
> ROM
> > such that, when you turned the thing on and were ready to load and run
the
> > job of the moment, you could push a green button that would cause the
ROM
> to
> > be loaded into mem and executed?
>
> It would have required additional circuitry, adding cost and complexity
and
> using up
> space on the boards.  The Nova was build to very tight cost targets and
> those early
> boards were awfully crowded, mostly by components, but also by the desire
to
> keep
> the layer count as low as possible both to get high yields and lower cost
> boards.
>
> Even so, it was available as an option fairly early on, and became a
> standard feature
> in later models, when the convenience came to outweigh the costs.
>
> An excellent reference on the Nova series can be found at:
>
>     http://users.rcn.com/crfriend/museum/inven.shtml
>
> Working through the list of Nova's and Eclipses from the top is quite
> interesting
> and, as far as I can tell, quite accurate.  I worked with Novas and Nova
> clones
> (some built by the company I worked for) for many years and the vast
> majority
> of this site rings true.
>
> There's been some discussion of Nova's, over on alt.folklore.computers of
> late.
>
>     - Bill

Cost is never a good argument.  The cost savings of a simplified console is
huge.  A full console with all of the blinking lights, switches and
circuitry to support it is a large $ burden, not to mention board space for
the circuitry.


0
randy482 (428)
12/1/2003 10:15:59 PM
In article <slrnbsncut.knm.jimbo@bolt.sonic.net>, jimbo@sonic.net wrote:

> why couldn't this've been coded into a ROM
> such that, when you turned the thing on and were ready to load and run the
> job of the moment, you could push a green button that would cause the ROM to
> be loaded into mem and executed?

In the days of core memory and powerfail restart,
you normally would only need to key in the bootstrap
when you reloaded the software. It wasn't uncommon to
go for months without bootstrapping.

There were diode ROM bootstrap boards, but it was
cheaper to fat-finger the bootstrap in when you
needed it.
0
aek2 (123)
12/1/2003 10:23:09 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:C3Pyb.23321$P7.12575@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Cost is never a good argument.

Cost is always a good argument, so long as it's not the ONLY argument.

In this case, the associated point is "we get to stay in business if this is
good enough and costs less."

It was good enough and it did cost less, thus they stayed in business.

> The cost savings of a simplified console is huge.

But if the system failed to satisfied it's other requirements, it wouldn't
matter how much was saved.  If it wouldn't do the required job, it wouldn't
be sold.  At that time, the front panel was a necessity.  Or, at least, was
perceived as a necessity.

> A full console with all of the blinking lights, switches and circuitry
> to support it is a large $ burden, not to mention board space for
> the circuitry.

But that cost was already necessary to satisfy the target market.  As the
market evolved and the expenses were no longer covered by the needs of the
market, the front panel was no longer justified, and it went away.

As to board space, at that time, the lights/switches/etc for the front panel
were ON the front panel PCB.  There was little savings to be realized on the
processor by removing the front panel, but it would have cost board space to
do away with it.

Some years ago (I'd guess ten) I was doing a consulting job in a machine
shop and they showed me the control machine.  A Nova 840 or 1200, I'm not
sure which.  They were having some problems with it.  I suggested replacing
it with a Nova 4, which had no front panel.  The said it was impossible
because their programs used the sense switches to control the machine.
They'd have had to rewrite the application to use a terminal.  Besides, they
commented, where would we PUT a terminal, and how long do you think it would
survive?  So, I had to scare up a used Nova 3 for them.

    - Bill


0
Bill_Leary (360)
12/2/2003 4:23:45 AM
"Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ltUyb.388423$Tr4.1140079@attbi_s03...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:C3Pyb.23321$P7.12575@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > Cost is never a good argument.

You took the statement out of context:  I was replying to you saying that it
cost more to produce a turn-key console than a full blinking lights with all
the switches.  That cost being both $ and board space.  Data General went
with a "full function" console simply because with it problems are so much
easier to trace and it can replace a turn-key system but not the other way
around.

>
> Cost is always a good argument, so long as it's not the ONLY argument.

Again you stated that it cost less for Data General to manufacture "full
function" consoles it did NOT cost less, ergo cost is never a good argument.

>
> In this case, the associated point is "we get to stay in business if this
is
> good enough and costs less."
>
> It was good enough and it did cost less, thus they stayed in business.

It did not cost less, it cost more.  The reason they used it was that it was
more generic and would do more.  Later they like most manufacturers went to
turn-key.  It does not matter if it is Data General or Imsai Having switches
made the early people feel better, later they both went turn-key.

What made them stay in bussiness was making their customers feel safe.  That
safety being either support from Data General or their own IT saying that
with all these switches and lights they could take care of it.

>
> > The cost savings of a simplified console is huge.
>
> But if the system failed to satisfied it's other requirements, it wouldn't
> matter how much was saved.  If it wouldn't do the required job, it
wouldn't
> be sold.  At that time, the front panel was a necessity.  Or, at least,
was
> perceived as a necessity.
>
> > A full console with all of the blinking lights, switches and circuitry
> > to support it is a large $ burden, not to mention board space for
> > the circuitry.
>
> But that cost was already necessary to satisfy the target market.  As the
> market evolved and the expenses were no longer covered by the needs of the
> market, the front panel was no longer justified, and it went away.
>
> As to board space, at that time, the lights/switches/etc for the front
panel
> were ON the front panel PCB.  There was little savings to be realized on
the
> processor by removing the front panel, but it would have cost board space
to
> do away with it.
>
> Some years ago (I'd guess ten) I was doing a consulting job in a machine
> shop and they showed me the control machine.  A Nova 840 or 1200, I'm not
> sure which.  They were having some problems with it.  I suggested
replacing
> it with a Nova 4, which had no front panel.  The said it was impossible
> because their programs used the sense switches to control the machine.
> They'd have had to rewrite the application to use a terminal.  Besides,
they
> commented, where would we PUT a terminal, and how long do you think it
would
> survive?  So, I had to scare up a used Nova 3 for them.
>
>     - Bill

I only worked on Nova's from the software side, but on most other systems
the console required controllers that plugged into the busses.  Sometimes
only one card others used more.  On the main-frame I started with the
console controller took up 1/2 of one of the cabinets.

I never said that "full consoles" were a bad idea, I happen to believe the
opposite.  The first programs I wrote were through the console.  The point
was that you were incorrect in implying that a full console was cheaper to
build and took up less space.  It cost more to manufacture and it does take
up more space, it is also something else to break.


0
randy38 (638)
12/2/2003 7:03:07 AM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote

> The cost savings of a simplified console is
> huge.  A full console with all of the blinking lights, switches and
> circuitry to support it is a large $ burden, not to mention board space for
> the circuitry.

The full console with lights switches and circuitry was required for
engineering purposes anyway.  On later machines with 'ROM' bootstraps
all that happened was that the switches and lights were inside the
panel work instead of being on the outside.
0
riplin (4127)
12/2/2003 7:49:04 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312012349.f37f64e@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > The cost savings of a simplified console is
> > huge.  A full console with all of the blinking lights, switches and
> > circuitry to support it is a large $ burden, not to mention board space
for
> > the circuitry.
>
> The full console with lights switches and circuitry was required for
> engineering purposes anyway.  On later machines with 'ROM' bootstraps
> all that happened was that the switches and lights were inside the
> panel work instead of being on the outside.

The full console were not required for engineering services.  Full consoles
were preferred, that is how I first learned to program.  Some diagnostic
software required it, but usually only on computers that were not available
turn-key.

I have never seen a computer with the lights and switches inside the panel
(unless you are talking about see through dust covers).  I have seen some
with a few discrete led's, a few with bar led's, and many with a single
seven segment led's.  What computer had the lights and switches inside the
panel?  I have seen computers that put covers over the consoles to protect
against dust and tampering, but everyone I saw had at least a Plexiglas
window (most were completely see through Plexiglas).

The earlier mainframes I worked on were usually put on display, the computer
rooms usually had large glass walls so the company  bigwigs could walk
visitors by and show everyone the blinking lights.  That was a major reason
for the lights.  I never even noticed the lights unless something went
really haywire.  Minor problems were handled via teletype consoles.
Remember the movie War-Games, most of the Imsai's cards were sawed off so
they didn't plug into the buss only a couple of cards did anything.  All it
did was run to blink the lights randomly for the camera (just a small
program).  The only "real" computer in the movie was a CompuPro that was
never on camera, it generated all of the graphics for NORAD.


0
randy38 (638)
12/2/2003 8:21:25 AM
>The full console with lights switches and circuitry was required for
>engineering purposes anyway.  On later machines with 'ROM' bootstraps
>all that happened was that the switches and lights were inside the
>panel work instead of being on the outside.

I *mostly* agree that the panels were "for engineering purposes",
but remember that computer design is by evolution, not revolution.

The early computers were VERY unreliable (used tubes, acoustic delays, etc)
so diagnostic panels were embedded into the design for maintenance
and circuit debugging.  Back then you could trust NOTHING to work properly:
the fault could be just about any part.
[I wish I had taken photos of the IBM 1620's card reader/punch:
there were panels of switches and lights INSIDE for testing it,
and a multimeter with a 12 position switch to check pre-wired points] [*1]

Programmers started using the front panels for debugging,
particularly for asserting control on memory and CPU.
Some monitor programs used the register displays for error codes
(it was easy to load a register and HALT for operator intervention).
Some programs read sense switches
and used sense lights for in-progress status.
Even FORTRAN could set sense lights and read sense switches,
so it was already deemed a higher level programming concept. [*2]

As computers became transistorized and then ICs, front panels
were REDUCED in size but programmers were still
familiar with using them in case all else failed.
Even with CPU speeds too fast to see all the patterns,
general patterns could be discerned on the panels to sense
if the system was running properly or hung or in a loop.

Without front panels or visible tape reels,
how can you see if the computer is "thinking"?
No wonder the Network panels are now visible:
they have the Blinkenlights!


[*1] today's servers are going BACK to that with
dedicated diagnostic displays on the front panel and displays inside
to identify faulty components.
When racks hold 25+ servers each, now do you find the sick one?
High reliability systems have at least a status LED
on every card or module to facilitate maintenance.

[*2] I don't miss the early days of mainframes:
most of used it in "batch" mode: submit the punched card deck and then
wait from minutes to days to get the deck back with the printout.
If all went well, the printout was useful enough to debug the program,
else add print statements to trace things out and run again.
If the program ABENDED (ABnormal END: raised an exception, etc)
then you got a hex core dump to figure out on your own.
Yes, a printed core dump.  Disk space was too expensive for such data files,
even when interactive terminals were available.
That's why all computer places (schools, offices) had HUGE bins for
recycling the cards and printouts.
Just one core dump could be over an inch thick using genuine
green-bar fanfold (132 column wide, 66 lines top to bottom).

Until interactive CRT terminals were common, working at the front panel
was an attractive option for program debugging and monitoring.
0
jeffj (156)
12/2/2003 8:57:29 AM
>The full console with lights switches and circuitry was required for
>engineering purposes anyway.  On later machines with 'ROM' bootstraps
>all that happened was that the switches and lights were inside the
>panel work instead of being on the outside.

ROMs were not cost-effective until recently.

- the IBM system 1130 had no rom anywhere.
It was transistor modules and core memory.
It booted from the card reader or paper tape reader
(happily, with the push of ONE button:
I never had to toggle in instructions or set the starting address).
Peripherals tended to have unique character sets;
software was used to convert among the encoding schemes.
Punched cards were read as 12 bit column-binary into 16 bit core words
since the card reader had no built-in conversion.

- RJE (remote job entry) terminals used either floppy disk
or a punched card deck to load the "firmware" upon power-on.
No ROMS there either.
0
jeffj (156)
12/2/2003 9:07:50 AM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5NWyb.1389$R7.435@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ltUyb.388423$Tr4.1140079@attbi_s03...
> > "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:C3Pyb.23321$P7.12575@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > > Cost is never a good argument.
>
> You took the statement out of context:  I was replying to you saying that
it
> cost more to produce a turn-key console than a full blinking lights with
all
> the switches.

Neither the original author, nor I, was talking about replacing the full
console.  We were talking about ADDING a one-button boot feature.

My reponse was:
    "It would have required additional circuitry, adding cost and complexity
and using up space on the boards."

I said it would cost more to ADD a turn-key boot feature.

The turn key feature is cheaper only *IF* you could REPLACE the full console
with a turn key one. If you had to have the full console AND the turn key
feature, then it was MORE expensive.

I'll skip most of the remaining cost comments since they all procede from
the above misunderstanding.

> It does not matter if it is Data General or Imsai Having switches
> made the early people feel better, later they both went turn-key.

They didn't just "feel better," they were needed.  Observe, for example, the
Heathkit H8 which didn't have the binary lights and switches, but did
implement the same capability via some 7 seg LEDs and some buttons.  This
was also a good example of the state of the art allowing a lower parts
count, and thus cheaper, solution.  Or the Novas with the remote front
panel, a gadget with all the same features as the original front panel, and
some sophisticated debug features to boot.  Again, state of the art cost
cutting AND feature enhancement.  The interface was necessary, whether via
switches and lights or 7segs and buttons, --at that time-- to use the
systems effectively.  Eventually other techniques were developed at that
necessity faded.

> I only worked on Nova's from the software side, but on most
> other systems the console required controllers that plugged into
> the busses.

I worked with Novas and Imsais, both of which had most of the console logic
on the console itself.  I've heard DECs were similar, though I've never had
one open to look.  They plugged into special slots or used ribbon cables to
the processor, or both.  One advantage of this, though I suspect the
creators didn't plan it that way, was that they COULD install turn key
consoles later by plugging it in in place of the original one and replacing
the CPU with one which could boot itself.  Or, in one case I read about, the
turn-key front panel simply "toggled in" the boot sequence just as if the
operator had been there flipping switches.

>  Sometimes
> only one card others used more.  On the main-frame I started with the
> console controller took up 1/2 of one of the cabinets.

I seem to recall the IBM 360 was similar.

> I never said that "full consoles" were a bad idea, I happen to believe the
> opposite.

I didn't think you did.

> The first programs I wrote were through the console.

Me too.

> The point was that you were incorrect in implying that a full console
> was cheaper to build and took up less space. It cost more to manufacture
> and it does take up more space, it is also something else to break.

If I'd said that, you'd be correct.  What I said was that ADDING the
one-button load feature would cost more.  "More" in this case being "in
addition to" not "as a replacement of."  The cost of the full console was
already absorbed in making the machine marketable.  Having it also be used
to boot the machine didn't cost any more, and people didn't think anything
of the need to toggle in a boot.  The machines all had core and, unless you
really wacked the machine, all you had to toggle in was a jump to the boot
routine which would still be in core.  If that got hammered, you'd have to
toggle that back in too.

    - Bill


0
Bill_Leary (360)
12/2/2003 12:49:55 PM
>Neither the original author, nor I, was talking about replacing the full
>console.  We were talking about ADDING a one-button boot feature.
>My reponse was:
>"It would have required additional circuitry, adding cost and complexity
>and using up space on the boards."
>
>I said it would cost more to ADD a turn-key boot feature.

In a way, that proves the "power of the console" that it could
"reach out and touch someone" (to abuse an old phone commercial).
Like a puppet on strings, the console used to have real control
over the machine.  Now I consider myself fortunate
to have a RESET switch on my PC :-(

When I started using microprocessors with no pinouts for the registers,
I felt a little strange ... no more panel lights for individual registers.
I had to depend on software to bring that out to be seen,
and I had to TRUST the software!

>The turn key feature is cheaper only *IF* you could REPLACE the full console
>with a turn key one. If you had to have the full console AND the turn key
>feature, then it was MORE expensive.
....
>> It does not matter if it is Data General or Imsai Having switches
>> made the early people feel better, later they both went turn-key.
>
>They didn't just "feel better," they were needed.  Observe, for example, the
>Heathkit H8 which didn't have the binary lights and switches, but did
>implement the same capability via some 7 seg LEDs and some buttons.

I went thru a similar development cycle for me undergraduate project.
I breadboarded a Z80 of my own design.
Since no EPROM programmer was available at that time,
I started with an old fashined panel of toggle switches and LEDs.
About 1/4 of the way wiring up the panel, using surplus parts,
and having solder joints popping apart already,
I scrapped that idea and bought a Timex/Sinclair 1000
(a later version of the ZX80/81).
With just a few tri-state buffers, the static RAM was connected
to either my system-under-test or the TS1000 front panel,
so now I had a keyboard, TV display and programmable system as front panel.
[but it only handled RAM, no seeing the CPU registers or status].
I used it just to peek and poke at memory, but I could have added functions
such as search-ram-for-pattern, save ram, load ram with predetermined code, etc.
The main limitation was the TS1000 having only an audio cassette for storage,
no random access file system.

I recently found the manual for the Heathkit Microprocessor Trainer ET-3400.
The schematic showed just how few chips are needed for a
hex keyboard and 7-segment display front panel.
But that depended on ROM "firmware" to work, which was reasonable by then.
I still have qualms about using the processor to scan the keyboard
when one chip can handle that with interrupts for key-presses.
Why waste all those precious CPU cycles?

Oddly, the most primitive system I used had little in the way of a "front panel".
The LGP-21 used individual transistors in the can, and a fixed head disk.
The registers were constantly written and re-read from the outermost track.
No core, no registers in circuitry.
3 registers were displayed on a specialized CRT with a mask showing the bit positions.
The Flexowriter was used for most I/O,
with a few pushbuttons for loading program counter, load memory, etc.
Since the paper tape reader/punch was integrated into that,
loading programs from paper tape didn't need any additional circuitry!
The opcodes were apparently juggled around to match baudot
so "B" was "bring memory to accumulator", etc.
I typed up a few tiny programs just to see it run.
I think it had a total of 8 switches and maybe 4 sense switches.
That's economical!
0
jeffj (156)
12/2/2003 3:49:25 PM
"Jeff Jonas" <jeffj@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bqhkp6$1go$1@panix5.panix.com...
> >The full console with lights switches and circuitry was required for
> >engineering purposes anyway.  On later machines with 'ROM' bootstraps
> >all that happened was that the switches and lights were inside the
> >panel work instead of being on the outside.
>
> ROMs were not cost-effective until recently.
>
The Nova 800 and 1200 I worked with both had discrete diode bootstrap ROMs.
Early 70's TTL fuse link PROMs were of very low density (32x4 ?) and power
hungry.  Even the first EPROMs didn't hold much (1702 was 256x8 and a hassle
to program).  But a discrete diode board took a lot of space and wasn't
cheap, so front panels were a good substitute.  Remember these were magnetic
core systems, a power off didn't lose what was in memory.  It wasn't a big
deal to flip a few address switches and go to the chunk of memory that had a
boot loader.

The early S-100 Altair/IMSAI machines had the same philosophy, except for
the volatile memory.  As I recall the paper tape boot for MITS basic took
about 5 minutes to put in from the front panel.  In 1975 ROM boards with
1702s were not cheap (if it was your own money) but the major hangup was
getting a 1702 programmed with a workable bootstrap.  When Intel came out
with the larger 2704/2708 EPROM and the simplified device programming it
made ROM boots affordable.  Of course 2708s were $20 a piece, so large ROM
boards weren't for college students.

Before CP/M came out I used an IMSAI with the Processor Technology ALS-8
monitor/assembler/editor package in 8KB of high EPROM memory.   I customized
it with some crude floppy disk routines for storage (read/write memory to a
disk track) and a piece of paper as the directory.  For nearly a year this
was our 8080 development system until CP/M came out.  Like the Nova I could
turn the machine on, hit the address switches and start running immediately.
   Jack Peacock


0
peacock (183)
12/2/2003 4:54:47 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com> wrote 

> > The full console with lights switches and circuitry was required for
> > engineering purposes anyway.  On later machines with 'ROM' bootstraps
> > all that happened was that the switches and lights were inside the
> > panel work instead of being on the outside.
> 
> The full console were not required for engineering services. 

They were on the machines that I used and was discussing.  It was the
TTY console that was optional.

> I have never seen a computer with the lights and switches inside the panel
> (unless you are talking about see through dust covers).  I have seen some
> with a few discrete led's, a few with bar led's, and many with a single
> seven segment led's.  What computer had the lights and switches inside the
> panel?  

I was discussing ICL mainframes, some were quite samll.  Some later
ones had a complete engineering station inside the cabinetwork.  Open
the cover and there was a display, keyboard and a small processor that
ran the diagnostics on the rest of the system.

Today, for a rack mounted blade server system I would add a 19 inch
rack slide such as a NovaView IMR16 that has a fold down LCD, keyboard
and KVM and slides into a 1/3 height slot.

> visitors by and show everyone the blinking lights.  That was a major reason
> for the lights. 

Is that right ?  Geez, I was only a lowly operator and thought they
did something useful.  The engineers must have been playing with them
just to keep up the illusion.
0
riplin (4127)
12/2/2003 5:56:36 PM
"Jeff Jonas" <jeffj@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bqhkp6$1go$1@panix5.panix.com...
> >The full console with lights switches and circuitry was required for
> >engineering purposes anyway.  On later machines with 'ROM' bootstraps
> >all that happened was that the switches and lights were inside the
> >panel work instead of being on the outside.
>
> ROMs were not cost-effective until recently.

ROMs were always cost effective:  Assuming all you need is a loader for a
turn-key system.  Bootstraps were done with only a hand-full of diodes and a
few gates (DTL & later TTL).  This is a CP/M group so anyone interested look
up the schematics of S100 CPUs you will find similiar logic on their POJ
circuits.  POJ circuits are not true boot straps, but they do whow what can
be done.  The 8080/Z80 systems required a lot more code to boot than the
earlier main-frame computers.  That is why it was so common to have roms
with ZAPPLE, Cromemco Z80 monitor, RDOS, SOLOS/CUTTER etc. which are too
complicated to use diodes.

>
> - the IBM system 1130 had no rom anywhere.
> It was transistor modules and core memory.
> It booted from the card reader or paper tape reader
> (happily, with the push of ONE button:
> I never had to toggle in instructions or set the starting address).
> Peripherals tended to have unique character sets;
> software was used to convert among the encoding schemes.
> Punched cards were read as 12 bit column-binary into 16 bit core words
> since the card reader had no built-in conversion.

IBM like most others of their time had the boot based on particular hardware
& microcode that allowed for simpler boot routines (usually only one
instruction required).  I don't have specific knoledge of the 1130, but I
would bet that the one button did load from a diode matrix.

>
> - RJE (remote job entry) terminals used either floppy disk
> or a punched card deck to load the "firmware" upon power-on.
> No ROMS there either.


0
randy482 (428)
12/2/2003 10:06:28 PM
"Jeff Jonas" <jeffj@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bqica5$5tu$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In a way, that proves the "power of the console" that it could
> ((..omitted..))
> I had to depend on software to bring that out to be seen,
> and I had to TRUST the software!

Yes, I remember the exact same feelings myself.

> I scrapped that idea and bought a Timex/Sinclair 1000
> ((..creative solution omitted..))

Very nice way to use something available to reduce complexity.

> I recently found the manual for the Heathkit Microprocessor Trainer
ET-3400.
> The schematic showed just how few chips are needed for a
> hex keyboard and 7-segment display front panel.

I'm not familiar with the ET-3400.  My Heathkit computer experience was
limited to the H8 and, briefly, the H11.

> But that depended on ROM "firmware" to work, which was reasonable by then.
> I still have qualms about using the processor to scan the keyboard
> when one chip can handle that with interrupts for key-presses.
> Why waste all those precious CPU cycles?

The H8 not only scanned the keyboard under software, but also updated the
7Seg LEDs.  It came out (as I recall) right around when true single ship
CPUs (i.e.: 8051) were appearing which could have effectively offloaded
these tasks.  At the time, the cost savings to re-use the main CPU (which
you'd had to pay for anyway) to operate the front panel made a lot of sense.
In the H8 you could disable the interrupt which was used to run the console
if you wanted to use all the CPU cycles for your own purposes.  As I recall,
RESET still worked, but the rest of the buttons and the all of the display
went dead.

> Oddly, the most primitive system I used had little in the way of a "front
panel".
> The LGP-21 used individual transistors in the can, and a fixed head disk.
> The registers were constantly written and re-read from the outermost
track.
> No core, no registers in circuitry.
> 3 registers were displayed on a specialized CRT with a mask showing the
bit positions.
> The Flexowriter was used for most I/O,
> with a few pushbuttons for loading program counter, load memory, etc.
> Since the paper tape reader/punch was integrated into that,
> loading programs from paper tape didn't need any additional circuitry!
> The opcodes were apparently juggled around to match baudot
> so "B" was "bring memory to accumulator", etc.
> I typed up a few tiny programs just to see it run.
> I think it had a total of 8 switches and maybe 4 sense switches.
> That's economical!

Yes, the (in)famous LGP-21, of "The Story Of Mel" fame.  I never used one,
and I've only seen one once.  Got a few pictures around here somewhere, if
you're interested.

    - Bill


0
Bill_Leary (360)
12/2/2003 10:24:35 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote

> > ROMs were not cost-effective until recently.
> 
> ROMs were always cost effective: 

No they weren't, they were not 'cost effective' in 1872.

> Assuming all you need is a loader for a
> turn-key system.  Bootstraps were done with only a hand-full of diodes and a
> few gates (DTL & later TTL). 

That may well be true with, say, S100 systems.  However that was much
_later_ than the 60s where many machines did not have the circuitry to
support a separate address space for the ROM.
0
riplin (4127)
12/4/2003 6:31:07 PM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312041031.3a7a58b4@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > > ROMs were not cost-effective until recently.
> >
> > ROMs were always cost effective:
>
> No they weren't, they were not 'cost effective' in 1872.

FWIW: "ROMs" were used in early US census (Holerith).

>
> > Assuming all you need is a loader for a
> > turn-key system.  Bootstraps were done with only a hand-full of diodes
and a
> > few gates (DTL & later TTL).
>
> That may well be true with, say, S100 systems.  However that was much
> _later_ than the 60s where many machines did not have the circuitry to
> support a separate address space for the ROM.

The circuitry was available.  In the early 60's turn-key was no seen as an
important step.  While the circuitry was available and used it was just part
of the full console.  Diode matrix technology was used to pre-load memory as
a function of most consoles.


0
randy482 (428)
12/4/2003 11:11:01 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote

> FWIW: "ROMs" were used in early US census (Holerith).

Do you 'cards'.  They are not ROMs, they can be written.

> > That may well be true with, say, S100 systems.  However that was much
> > _later_ than the 60s where many machines did not have the circuitry to
> > support a separate address space for the ROM.
> 
> The circuitry was available.  

In what way was it 'available'.  Do you mean that someone _could_ have
sat down and designed it and then built it ?  Later they did in fact
do that for some machines.

> In the early 60's turn-key was no seen as an
> important step.  While the circuitry was available and used it was just part
> of the full console. 

You seem to be talking about one machine, or so, while using terms
that covers the whole world.  This is a common feature of your
pontifications.

> Diode matrix technology was used to pre-load memory as
> a function of most consoles.

Most ?  Which one did, which ones did not.  Just because the machines
that you used may have had that does not mean that the the machines
that I used did.
0
riplin (4127)
12/5/2003 6:32:47 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312042232.19d22d7@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > FWIW: "ROMs" were used in early US census (Holerith).
>
> Do you 'cards'.  They are not ROMs, they can be written.

You obviously do not know what the acronym ROM stands for, so here is a
short description and explination for you:

Read Only Memory - Something that once written to is then generally just
read.  Examples can include diode matrix, Bi-polar fusable, factory masked,
eraseable, electyrically eraseable, plastic disks (including but not limited
to Compact Disks), metal/paper/plastic punch cards.  In general ROMs refer
to machine readable that does include the Holerith counters for early
census, looms, even plastic punch cards used by hotels.

>
> > > That may well be true with, say, S100 systems.  However that was much
> > > _later_ than the 60s where many machines did not have the circuitry to
> > > support a separate address space for the ROM.
> >
> > The circuitry was available.
>
> In what way was it 'available'.  Do you mean that someone _could_ have
> sat down and designed it and then built it ?  Later they did in fact
> do that for some machines.
>
> > In the early 60's turn-key was no seen as an
> > important step.  While the circuitry was available and used it was just
part
> > of the full console.
>
> You seem to be talking about one machine, or so, while using terms
> that covers the whole world.  This is a common feature of your
> pontifications.
>
> > Diode matrix technology was used to pre-load memory as
> > a function of most consoles.
>
> Most ?  Which one did, which ones did not.  Just because the machines
> that you used may have had that does not mean that the the machines
> that I used did.

You wish to believe that because you do not understand what hardware was
available; whether it is this century or in past centuries, it was there and
used.

You obviously do not understand simple axioms - the hardware was available
and it was useful.  As such it was used when appropriate by a variety of
manufacturers.

In the 50's, 60's, and 70's there was an explosion of computers being used
commercially (all because of one Univac rep talking to one airline exec on a
fateful flight).

As computers moved from DOW to commercial use the explosion of machines
caused a great shortage of qualified people to use them.  That started the
"user-friendly" shift:  More switches and lights - less direct wiring, more
punch cards less switches and lights, etc.  This lead to the inevitable
turn-key systems.

FWIW it was the above mentioned flight that led to the internet, sorry to
disappoint those that still believe that Gore invented it.


0
randy482 (428)
12/5/2003 7:30:34 AM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote

> You obviously do not know what the acronym ROM stands for, 

From your manner, you seem to assume that it is 'obvious' that no one
knows what they are talking about except yourself.

> Read Only Memory - Something that once written to is then generally just
> read.  

No it isn't.  If it is _read_only_ then it cannot be written.  How
would you 'write' to a diode array ?  If it is a _Programmable_ ROM
then it may be written to, but ROMs are assembled or manufactured as
such.

> Examples can include diode matrix, 

That cannot be 'written to'

> Bi-polar fusable, factory masked,
> eraseable, electyrically eraseable, plastic disks ...

Those are PROMs, EPROMs and EEPROMs, etc.

Since when were those _ALWAYS_ cost effective ?  They certainly were
not in the 1950s.

> In general ROMs refer
> to machine readable that does include the Holerith counters for early
> census, 

Can you give some references in contempory writings where punched
cards are called ROMs ?  Otherwise I shall conclude that you are just
making it up to make an argument.

Punch cards are _not_ read only.  It may be that they are not
erasable.

> > Most ?  Which one did, which ones did not.  Just because the machines
> > that you used may have had that does not mean that the the machines
> > that I used did.
> 
> You wish to believe that because you do not understand what hardware was
> available; whether it is this century or in past centuries, it was there and
> used.

That's amazing, you probably haven't even heard of the manufacturer of
the machines that I used and yet you just _know_ the intimate details
of the catalogue for every year of manufacture.

> You obviously do not understand simple axioms - the hardware was available
> and it was useful.  As such it was used when appropriate by a variety of
> manufacturers.

Do you really think that someone could just buy an 'XYZ ROM and
addressing circuit' and plug it into a ABC model 616 computer ?  Do
you think that development is free ?
 
> In the 50's, 60's, and 70's there was an explosion of computers being used
> commercially (all because of one Univac rep talking to one airline exec on a
> fateful flight).

Actually the first computer used commercially was the LEO, which had
nothing to do with Univac and owed nothing to it.

However the Univac was the first commercially available computer - it
could be purchased, but none were used for commercial purposes until
later.
 
> As computers moved from DOW to commercial use the explosion of machines
> caused a great shortage of qualified people to use them.  That started the
> "user-friendly" shift:  More switches and lights - less direct wiring, more
> punch cards less switches and lights, etc.  This lead to the inevitable
> turn-key systems.

> FWIW it was the above mentioned flight that led to the internet, sorry to
> disappoint those that still believe that Gore invented it.

Geez, I just don't know why you haven't written this all down and had
it published.
0
riplin (4127)
12/5/2003 8:02:57 PM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312051202.4511f8ff@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > You obviously do not know what the acronym ROM stands for,
>
> From your manner, you seem to assume that it is 'obvious' that no one
> knows what they are talking about except yourself.
>
> > Read Only Memory - Something that once written to is then generally just
> > read.
>
> No it isn't.  If it is _read_only_ then it cannot be written.  How
> would you 'write' to a diode array ?  If it is a _Programmable_ ROM
> then it may be written to, but ROMs are assembled or manufactured as
> such.
>
> > Examples can include diode matrix,
>
> That cannot be 'written to'
>
> > Bi-polar fusable, factory masked,
> > eraseable, electyrically eraseable, plastic disks ...
>
> Those are PROMs, EPROMs and EEPROMs, etc.

All memory devices have to be written to at least once.  With a diode matrix
the writing is done by the wiring of the diodes (some matrix's were done by
cutting out diodes), facrory roms are done photographically, CD's are done
with a press, etc.  Whether it is a ROM, PROM, EPROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM,
metal/plastic/paper cards, etc. they are all memory devices, they are all
ROM devices.  For your information the statement Read Only Memory specifies
the general use of the device, the device still has to be written to at
least once to have something to be read.  For your information the word
programable as in Programable Read Only Memory refers to the fact that the
device is able to be written to (programmed) outside of the factory it does
not change the fact that they are ROM's.

If you have any knowledge of computers I assume it is in software, it
obviously is not in hardware.

>
> Since when were those _ALWAYS_ cost effective ?  They certainly were
> not in the 1950s.
>
> > In general ROMs refer
> > to machine readable that does include the Holerith counters for early
> > census,
>
> Can you give some references in contempory writings where punched
> cards are called ROMs ?  Otherwise I shall conclude that you are just
> making it up to make an argument.
>
> Punch cards are _not_ read only.  It may be that they are not
> erasable.

Punch cards are by definition Read Only Memory.  They certainly are memory
devices going back centuries long before the technical term ROM was coined
by a chip manufacturer (no, I have no idea which manufacturer created the
term).  Punch cards are meant to be machine readable memory devices in
normal use even though like all other memory devices they do need to be
puched (written to) once.

>
> > > Most ?  Which one did, which ones did not.  Just because the machines
> > > that you used may have had that does not mean that the the machines
> > > that I used did.
> >
> > You wish to believe that because you do not understand what hardware was
> > available; whether it is this century or in past centuries, it was there
and
> > used.
>
> That's amazing, you probably haven't even heard of the manufacturer of
> the machines that I used and yet you just _know_ the intimate details
> of the catalogue for every year of manufacture.
>
> > You obviously do not understand simple axioms - the hardware was
available
> > and it was useful.  As such it was used when appropriate by a variety of
> > manufacturers.
>
> Do you really think that someone could just buy an 'XYZ ROM and
> addressing circuit' and plug it into a ABC model 616 computer ?  Do
> you think that development is free ?
>
> > In the 50's, 60's, and 70's there was an explosion of computers being
used
> > commercially (all because of one Univac rep talking to one airline exec
on a
> > fateful flight).
>
> Actually the first computer used commercially was the LEO, which had
> nothing to do with Univac and owed nothing to it.
>
> However the Univac was the first commercially available computer - it
> could be purchased, but none were used for commercial purposes until
> later.
>
> > As computers moved from DOW to commercial use the explosion of machines
> > caused a great shortage of qualified people to use them.  That started
the
> > "user-friendly" shift:  More switches and lights - less direct wiring,
more
> > punch cards less switches and lights, etc.  This lead to the inevitable
> > turn-key systems.
>
> > FWIW it was the above mentioned flight that led to the internet, sorry
to
> > disappoint those that still believe that Gore invented it.
>
> Geez, I just don't know why you haven't written this all down and had
> it published.

I know these tidbits because others have written them down and people such
as myself have read them or experienced them directly.  FWIW I think I may
be wrong in it being a univac rep the more I think about it, it could have
been another manufacturer.  The point is that originally computers were not
seen as commercial, DOW had specific plans to quickly calculate artillery
trajectories.  To my knowledge that plan failed (at least for the digital
side) they ended up using analog computers that were 100% mechanical (the
same computers are still used today for the Navy's 16" guns).  The computers
were marketed in a variety of commercial endeavors, a network of computers
selling airline tickets helped start two things an explosion of commercial
use and the concept of a national (later international) network to share
information.

If you have any interest in learning something about computers I suggest a
visit to your local library.  This group is geared toward people who are
interested in a particular type of computer system (CP/M computers) and want
mutual support.


0
randy482 (428)
12/5/2003 9:01:08 PM

Randy McLaughlin wrote:
> "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:217e491a.0312051202.4511f8ff@posting.google.com...
> 
>>"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>You obviously do not know what the acronym ROM stands for,
>>
>>From your manner, you seem to assume that it is 'obvious' that no one
>>knows what they are talking about except yourself.
>>
>>
>>>Read Only Memory - Something that once written to is then generally just
>>>read.
>>
>>No it isn't.  If it is _read_only_ then it cannot be written.  How
>>would you 'write' to a diode array ?  If it is a _Programmable_ ROM
>>then it may be written to, but ROMs are assembled or manufactured as
>>such.
>>
>>
>>>Examples can include diode matrix,
>>
>>That cannot be 'written to'
>>
>>
>>>Bi-polar fusable, factory masked,
>>>eraseable, electyrically eraseable, plastic disks ...
>>
>>Those are PROMs, EPROMs and EEPROMs, etc.
> 
> 
> All memory devices have to be written to at least once.  With a diode matrix
> the writing is done by the wiring of the diodes (some matrix's were done by
> cutting out diodes), facrory roms are done photographically, CD's are done
> with a press, etc.  Whether it is a ROM, PROM, EPROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM,
> metal/plastic/paper cards, etc. they are all memory devices, they are all
> ROM devices.  For your information the statement Read Only Memory specifies
> the general use of the device, the device still has to be written to at
> least once to have something to be read.  For your information the word
> programable as in Programable Read Only Memory refers to the fact that the
> device is able to be written to (programmed) outside of the factory it does
> not change the fact that they are ROM's.
> 
> If you have any knowledge of computers I assume it is in software, it
> obviously is not in hardware.
> 
> 
>>Since when were those _ALWAYS_ cost effective ?  They certainly were
>>not in the 1950s.
>>
>>
>>>In general ROMs refer
>>>to machine readable that does include the Holerith counters for early
>>>census,
>>
>>Can you give some references in contempory writings where punched
>>cards are called ROMs ?  Otherwise I shall conclude that you are just
>>making it up to make an argument.
>>
>>Punch cards are _not_ read only.  It may be that they are not
>>erasable.
> 
> 
> Punch cards are by definition Read Only Memory.  

You are confusing memory with storage.

Roy

They certainly are memory
> devices going back centuries long before the technical term ROM was coined
> by a chip manufacturer (no, I have no idea which manufacturer created the
> term).  Punch cards are meant to be machine readable memory devices in
> normal use even though like all other memory devices they do need to be
> puched (written to) once.
> 
> 
>>>>Most ?  Which one did, which ones did not.  Just because the machines
>>>>that you used may have had that does not mean that the the machines
>>>>that I used did.
>>>
>>>You wish to believe that because you do not understand what hardware was
>>>available; whether it is this century or in past centuries, it was there
> 
> and
> 
>>>used.
>>
>>That's amazing, you probably haven't even heard of the manufacturer of
>>the machines that I used and yet you just _know_ the intimate details
>>of the catalogue for every year of manufacture.
>>
>>
>>>You obviously do not understand simple axioms - the hardware was
> 
> available
> 
>>>and it was useful.  As such it was used when appropriate by a variety of
>>>manufacturers.
>>
>>Do you really think that someone could just buy an 'XYZ ROM and
>>addressing circuit' and plug it into a ABC model 616 computer ?  Do
>>you think that development is free ?
>>
>>
>>>In the 50's, 60's, and 70's there was an explosion of computers being
> 
> used
> 
>>>commercially (all because of one Univac rep talking to one airline exec
> 
> on a
> 
>>>fateful flight).
>>
>>Actually the first computer used commercially was the LEO, which had
>>nothing to do with Univac and owed nothing to it.
>>
>>However the Univac was the first commercially available computer - it
>>could be purchased, but none were used for commercial purposes until
>>later.
>>
>>
>>>As computers moved from DOW to commercial use the explosion of machines
>>>caused a great shortage of qualified people to use them.  That started
> 
> the
> 
>>>"user-friendly" shift:  More switches and lights - less direct wiring,
> 
> more
> 
>>>punch cards less switches and lights, etc.  This lead to the inevitable
>>>turn-key systems.
>>
>>>FWIW it was the above mentioned flight that led to the internet, sorry
> 
> to
> 
>>>disappoint those that still believe that Gore invented it.
>>
>>Geez, I just don't know why you haven't written this all down and had
>>it published.
> 
> 
> I know these tidbits because others have written them down and people such
> as myself have read them or experienced them directly.  FWIW I think I may
> be wrong in it being a univac rep the more I think about it, it could have
> been another manufacturer.  The point is that originally computers were not
> seen as commercial, DOW had specific plans to quickly calculate artillery
> trajectories.  To my knowledge that plan failed (at least for the digital
> side) they ended up using analog computers that were 100% mechanical (the
> same computers are still used today for the Navy's 16" guns).  The computers
> were marketed in a variety of commercial endeavors, a network of computers
> selling airline tickets helped start two things an explosion of commercial
> use and the concept of a national (later international) network to share
> information.
> 
> If you have any interest in learning something about computers I suggest a
> visit to your local library.  This group is geared toward people who are
> interested in a particular type of computer system (CP/M computers) and want
> mutual support.
> 
> 



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
0
millers (188)
12/5/2003 9:56:36 PM
"Exegete" <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:3fd0ff17$1_5@corp.newsgroups.com...

> Randy McLaughlin wrote:
> > "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:217e491a.0312051202.4511f8ff@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> >>Punch cards are _not_ read only.  It may be that they are not
> >>erasable.
> >
> >
> > Punch cards are by definition Read Only Memory.
>
> You are confusing memory with storage.
>
> Roy

I assume storage you are refering to is called off-line storage.  As such
off-line storage is memory and like other memory can be read/write or
read/only.  Within that it gets even more confusing when you add eraseable
read/only.  A good contemporary example is the CD, it is a ROM device that
is used for off-line storage sometimes eraseable (that is why it is called
CD-ROM).

If you have read other posts you may have noted that some computers have
mixed the concept of off-line storage where drums were used to store
magnetically what is now RAM (registers and memory storage).

Your confusion of what memory is, is common since today we ten to place
certain types of storage into conceptual "boxes".  Early devolopers had no
such restrictions.  The truth is the storage you were refering to is memory
and memory is storage.  It does not matter if the memory is register
storage, or an archive of a data-base.

<snip>


0
randy482 (428)
12/5/2003 11:12:18 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote 

> > No it isn't.  If it is _read_only_ then it cannot be written.  How
> > would you 'write' to a diode array ?  If it is a _Programmable_ ROM
> > then it may be written to, but ROMs are assembled or manufactured as
> > such.
 
> All memory devices have to be written to at least once.  With a diode matrix
> the writing is done by the wiring of the diodes 

No. Wrong.  Diode Matricies are not 'written', they are manufactured.

[blah blah blah]

> If you have any knowledge of computers I assume it is in software, it
> obviously is not in hardware.

Why do you reiterate much of what I said and then make this claim that
you are a 'know it all'.

> Punch cards are by definition Read Only Memory.  

What complete nonsense.  They can be written to using a perfectly
normal card writer and read using a reader.  In many cases one device
will do both.

In many systems when unit record equipment was used, cards with data
may have additional data added to them during system processing.  eg
total cards have an additional total added by the tabulator.

>  The point is that originally computers were not
> seen as commercial, 

This is overly simplistic.  Unit record equipment, including
accumulators and tabulators were commercially available since the
1920s. Programmable computers were seen by many as a way of extending
this.  Some saw them as a commercial prospect, others did not.  First,
of course, they had to be made to work.

> DOW had specific plans to quickly calculate artillery
> trajectories.  To my knowledge that plan failed (at least for the digital
> side) they ended up using analog computers that were 100% mechanical (the
> same computers are still used today for the Navy's 16" guns).  

Artillery calculations have been done by 'computers' since before WWI.
 It is just that the term was applied to people doing calculations. 
Analog computers have been used since the 1920s for this purpose, and
many others, and many were electro-mechanical or electronic.  For
example in WWII the AA guns were laid using electronic analog
computers that calculated the trajectory and fusing required from
optical sighting and settings for speed and altitude.

While there certainly were mechanical analog computers, these have
been used for decades for various purposes, such as ship stability
since the mid 19th Century.

The only reason that ENIAC 'failed' is that it was not completed until
1946, too late to be useful in WWII.
0
riplin (4127)
12/6/2003 11:55:46 PM
In article <217e491a.0312061555.25b8cf5a@posting.google.com>, Richard wrote:
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote 
> 
>> > No it isn't.  If it is _read_only_ then it cannot be written.  How
>> > would you 'write' to a diode array ?  If it is a _Programmable_ ROM
>> > then it may be written to, but ROMs are assembled or manufactured as
>> > such.
>  
>> All memory devices have to be written to at least once.  With a diode matrix
>> the writing is done by the wiring of the diodes 
> 
> No. Wrong.  Diode Matricies are not 'written', they are manufactured.

Got my wire cutters right here...
-- 
Roger Ivie
rivie@ridgenet.net
<input type crash>
0
rivie (670)
12/7/2003 3:13:04 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312061555.25b8cf5a@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > > No it isn't.  If it is _read_only_ then it cannot be written.  How
> > > would you 'write' to a diode array ?  If it is a _Programmable_ ROM
> > > then it may be written to, but ROMs are assembled or manufactured as
> > > such.
>
> > All memory devices have to be written to at least once.  With a diode
matrix
> > the writing is done by the wiring of the diodes
>
> No. Wrong.  Diode Matricies are not 'written', they are manufactured.
>
> [blah blah blah]

Why do you keep showing so much of what you don't know.  Anything read must
first be written. In human readable writing humans have done everything from
pressing wooden tools into clay pads to braile typewriters, there are more
ways of writing than I can count.  I have written computer programs using
switches, keyboards, soldering irons, knives, and wire-cutters.  Writing is
the process of putting information that can leter be read back.  You
obviously have had a poor education which is a problem in that there are not
that many good teachers today.

>
> > If you have any knowledge of computers I assume it is in software, it
> > obviously is not in hardware.
>
> Why do you reiterate much of what I said and then make this claim that
> you are a 'know it all'.
>
> > Punch cards are by definition Read Only Memory.
>
> What complete nonsense.  They can be written to using a perfectly
> normal card writer and read using a reader.  In many cases one device
> will do both.
>
> In many systems when unit record equipment was used, cards with data
> may have additional data added to them during system processing.  eg
> total cards have an additional total added by the tabulator.

Just as today CD-ROMS may be modified with updated information (you may need
to ask someone what the yellowbook is and read up on multi-session).

>
> >  The point is that originally computers were not
> > seen as commercial,
>
> This is overly simplistic.  Unit record equipment, including
> accumulators and tabulators were commercially available since the
> 1920s. Programmable computers were seen by many as a way of extending
> this.  Some saw them as a commercial prospect, others did not.  First,
> of course, they had to be made to work.
>
> > DOW had specific plans to quickly calculate artillery
> > trajectories.  To my knowledge that plan failed (at least for the
digital
> > side) they ended up using analog computers that were 100% mechanical
(the
> > same computers are still used today for the Navy's 16" guns).
>
> Artillery calculations have been done by 'computers' since before WWI.
>  It is just that the term was applied to people doing calculations.
> Analog computers have been used since the 1920s for this purpose, and
> many others, and many were electro-mechanical or electronic.  For
> example in WWII the AA guns were laid using electronic analog
> computers that calculated the trajectory and fusing required from
> optical sighting and settings for speed and altitude.
>
> While there certainly were mechanical analog computers, these have
> been used for decades for various purposes, such as ship stability
> since the mid 19th Century.
>
> The only reason that ENIAC 'failed' is that it was not completed until
> 1946, too late to be useful in WWII.

Again you got it completely wrong.  DOW knew that WWII was not the end of
guns, the ENIAC failed as a machine used for trajectory calculations because
it could not be used in the field.  It was too sensitive to handle the
environmental needs.  It was too large.  It consumed too much electricity.
With the advent of microprocessors it has been possible to use electronic
digital computers in more trajectory calculations.  But the 16 inch naval
guns still use their original analog computers, it was decided that using
microprocessors would be an extra cost with zero benefit.

Like many things even though the ENIAC did not come close to doing what DOW
wanted it did open up another door.


0
randy482 (428)
12/7/2003 6:08:36 AM
Randy McLaughlin wrote:
> 
>           [snip...]         [snip...]         [snip...]
>
> Again you got it completely wrong.  DOW knew that WWII was not the end of
> guns, the ENIAC failed as a machine used for trajectory calculations because
> it could not be used in the field.  It was too sensitive to handle the
> environmental needs.  It was too large.  It consumed too much electricity.
> With the advent of microprocessors it has been possible to use electronic
> digital computers in more trajectory calculations.  But the 16 inch naval
> guns still use their original analog computers, it was decided that using
> microprocessors would be an extra cost with zero benefit.
> 
Another good point is that those gears and levers of the analog
computer are little affected by an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse),
such as those generated by nuclear weapons exploded high in the
atmosphere...while most microprocessors would be fried.

AFAIK, the ENIAC was *never* envisioned as being used out in
the field. The ENIAC was to calculate all the trajectories for
a specific gun. These would then be printed in book form and
the book would go out in the field.

The ENIAC did come in handy later for making calculations 
related to the hydrogen bomb.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
0
richchas2 (320)
12/7/2003 7:57:39 AM
Not sure of the origin of the comments. so:

>No it isn't.  If it is _read_only_ then it cannot be written.  How
>would you 'write' to a diode array ?  If it is a _Programmable_ ROM
>then it may be written to, but ROMs are assembled or manufactured as
>such.
>
>> Examples can include diode matrix, 
>
>That cannot be 'written to'

The writing process is done by installing diodes in selected places.
Whats so hard about that?  The idea of ROM is that once set (by
whatever means) it will retain that data and be read only.

The idea of ROM is old, it's simply  memory that in functional use is
read only. 

>> Bi-polar fusable, factory masked,
>> eraseable, electyrically eraseable, plastic disks ...
>
>Those are PROMs, EPROMs and EEPROMs, etc.

One forgets switch banks, plugboards, Rope core, plated wire rom

Allison.

0
nospam74 (614)
12/7/2003 5:49:36 PM
On 2 Dec 2003 04:07:50 -0500, jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) wrote:

>>The full console with lights switches and circuitry was required for
>>engineering purposes anyway.  On later machines with 'ROM' bootstraps
>>all that happened was that the switches and lights were inside the
>>panel work instead of being on the outside.

Generally for dignostic use, handy for others.   An artifact of early
machines needing maintenance and having little or no hardware to 
assist other than the front pannel or worse internal test points.

>ROMs were not cost-effective until recently.

With core, ROM was not essential, core could be powered down.
However while machines did have front pannels there were many 
that did not and used rope core (rom) in core address space to 
provide the needed functionality.  The Gemini, Apollo and LM 
flight computers were good examples of early integrated designs
that used rope core memory and some masked rom.  Even the 
PDP-8 had a diode rom card and powerfail restart that removed 
the need for front pannel.

I might note that mask roms were available in decent sizes long 
before the  fuze link or Eprom devices and represented some of the
first dense (more than 500 active elements) devices.   Examples of 
early rom devices  best known are keyboard encoders (early 70s)
and character roms(2513 is a oldie).   Lest we forget the 1702 and
friends (256kx8) Eprom were commercial in 1973.

Allison



0
nospam74 (614)
12/7/2003 6:23:58 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote

> > No. Wrong.  Diode Matricies are not 'written', they are manufactured.
> 
> Why do you keep showing so much of what you don't know.  Anything read must
> first be written. 

If the facts don't fit your argument you try to change the facts. 
Words have specific meanings and implications.  If they don't
differentiate particular ideas then communication fails.  In this case
you are a failure.

'Writing' has one particular set of meanings and implications. 
'Printing', 'manufacturing' and 'stamping' have others.

Something that can be 'read' may have been written, or it may be
'printed' or it may be 'stamped', or it may be 'manufactured'.  Just
because the word 'read' has been used for the process of reading does
not make all the other terms synonomous with each other.

> In human readable writing humans have done everything from
> pressing wooden tools into clay pads to braile typewriters, there are more
> ways of writing than I can count. 

Well at least you've demonstrated that you can count to 2.

And you have actually identified mechanism of _writing_.  Now if you
to carefully think about those particular examples you may be able to
find something in common: they are all sequential, one character or
word at a time.  That is the essence of 'writing' that differentiates
it from other mechanisms that are 'page at a time' (printing) or
similar.

> Just as today CD-ROMS may be modified with updated information (you may need
> to ask someone what the yellowbook is and read up on multi-session).

Actually, NO, you are wrong again.  CD-_ROM_s cannot be modified,
cannot be added to with multi-session.  You can only do that with CD-R
or CD-RW.  It is possible to turn a CD-R into acting like a CD-ROM,
but CD-ROMs are manufactured (not 'written') using a stamping process
which is quite different to the process of writing a CD-R or CD-RW.

You may want to make a note that when a CD-ROM is manufactured it is
done in one process that stamps it all at once.  When a CD-R or CD-RW
is _written_ it is done sequentially one byte at a time.  This is why
there are different words.

Back to the punch cards, I dug up some old details of one of the first
systems that I was involved with.  Due to NZ decimalising the currency
in the late 60s an old unit record system working in pounds, shillings
and pence, had to be re-implemented on a new-fangled computer.

The unit record sales order system had the order details key punched
into them with customer, order number, product code, quantity. Sorted
to product sequence it was match against the product master card deck
on the collator and the price and description were added to the order
line card by punching into the appropriate columns.  These were then
processed through the 555 Calculator, using a plug board program,
which read each card, multiplied the quantity by price and then
punched the result (in Pounds, shillings and pence, including
halfpennies) into further columns of the same card.

Sort back to order number and its ready for printing invoices on the
tabulator.

In spite of your adamant assertions you seem to know little about this
subject at all.


> > The only reason that ENIAC 'failed' is that it was not completed until
> > 1946, too late to be useful in WWII.
> 
> Again you got it completely wrong.  DOW knew that WWII was not the end of
> guns, the ENIAC failed as a machine used for trajectory calculations because
> it could not be used in the field.  It was too sensitive to handle the
> environmental needs.  It was too large.  It consumed too much electricity.

There was never any requirement for it to be used in the field. It was
to speed up the existing process, done for decades by human
'computers' and for some years by electonic analog computers of
producing trajectory tables to be printed in books for use by field
guns.

I suggest that you study some actual history on the subject before
pontificating down the wrong path.

> With the advent of microprocessors it has been possible to use electronic
> digital computers in more trajectory calculations.  But the 16 inch naval
> guns still use their original analog computers, it was decided that using
> microprocessors would be an extra cost with zero benefit.

'has' ? 'still' ?

I suspect that you have your decades mixed up.  It may well be that in
the 60s it was decided to keep the analog computer made in the 40s and
50s, but that was nearly 40 years ago, deciding about 50 year old
systems which were probably soon to be decommissioned.  Just how many
of those 50 year old guns are still in use now ?

Even in WWII Navy guns were being layed automatically by _electronic_
analog computers taking inputs from radar.  Are you claiming that the
US is still 60 years behind ?

> Like many things even though the ENIAC did not come close to doing what DOW
> wanted it did open up another door.

It did exactly what the DOW expected.  However, development took
rather too long (as I already said):

"""ENIAC was completed too late to be used for its original purpose of
calculating firing tables for artillery weapons. Instead, the first
real task assigned to ENIAC during its test runs in 1945 involved
millions of discrete calculations associated with top-secret studies
of thermonuclear chain reactions--the hydrogen bomb."""
0
riplin (4127)
12/7/2003 7:16:08 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote 

> > > DOW had specific plans to quickly calculate artillery
> > > trajectories.  To my knowledge that plan failed (at least for the
>  digital
> > > side) they ended up using analog computers that were 100% mechanical

Let us examine this 100% mechanical.  Yes the original Bush
differential analysers were mechanical, but around the early 40s:

"""Fortunately, at this time there was a very talented group at the
Moore School under the direction of Professor Brainerd and as a result
of Lieutenant Gillon's discussions with the professor and his
associates, Assistant Professor Weygand undertook to develop an
electronic torque amplifier to replace the mechanical torque
amplifiers on the Bush differential analyzers. This work was eminently
successful and in a rather brief period of time.

In addition, photoelectric followers were developed by the Moore
School group for both the input and output tables of the analyzer. As
a result of these accomplishments the productive capacity of the
analyzers at both the Moore School and at Aberdeen were enhanced by at
least an order of magnitude.""""

Your "to my knowledge" seems to have failed again.

> Like many things even though the ENIAC did not come close to doing what DOW
> wanted it did open up another door.

I thought that these particular items showed just how far wrong you
are:

"""The Chore contract and others completed during this period proved
the ENIAC's worth. Other machines, among them the Bush differential
analyzer and the Bell relay calculator, would have required a
prohibitive length of time to complete the problems that were assigned
to the ENIAC,"""


"""For example, a skilled person with a desk calculator could compute
a 60- second trajectory in about 20 hours. The analog differential
analyzer produced the same result in 15 minutes. ENIAC required 30
seconds--just half the time of the projectile's flight.

The ENIAC led the computer field during the period 1949 through 1952
when it served as the main computation workhorse for the solution of
the scientific problems of the Nation. It surpassed all other existing
computers put together whenever it came to problems involving a large
number of arithmetic operations. It was the major instrument for the
computation of all ballistic tables for the U.S. Army and Air
Force."""

Did you note that last sentence ?

ENIACs only 'failure' was that it was too late to be used in WWII for
which it was wanted.
0
riplin (4127)
12/7/2003 7:38:43 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote 

>  Within that it gets even more confusing when you add eraseable
> read/only.  A good contemporary example is the CD, it is a ROM device that
> is used for off-line storage sometimes eraseable (that is why it is called
> CD-ROM).

I do agree that you have found it very confusing.

CD stands for 'Compact Disk' and this is a design than specifies the
size of the media and how the data is laid out in various ways with
tracks and error corrections.  It does not specify the process of
manufacturing nor how it may be implemented.

Music CDs and CD-ROMs are usually manufactured by 'stamping' a pattern
onto a  disk while forming it from a blob of plastic, then coating
this with reflective and protective layers.  These, as the acronym
implies, are Read Only and can be 'erased' by, say, a piece of
sandpaper, or a corrosive liquid.

Other mechanisms for making CDs include CD-R and CD-RW where a blank
disk is manufactured and then 'written' (using the correct meaning of
this word - sequentially) with the required data.  These are not
CD-ROMs, but they can be made 'Read Only' by setting particular data
on them that software will recognise as meaning that it shouldn't
write to these anymore.

You may also be confused by the fact that a CD-ROM _drive_ cannot
write.  The 'ROM' in that case refers to the drive, not to the CD,
which may also be a CD-R or CD-RW.

Magnetic tapes, VCR tapes, files on hard disks, or even whole
partitions, can be marked as 'read only' which then prevents writing
but only insofar as the software actions this attribute.

Does this make VCR Tape or hard disks into 'ROMs' too ?  They may
_function_ as if they were ROMs, but they are still writable.
0
riplin (4127)
12/7/2003 9:18:15 PM

Richard wrote:

> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
> 
> 
>>>No. Wrong.  Diode Matricies are not 'written', they are manufactured.
>>
>>Why do you keep showing so much of what you don't know.  Anything read must
>>first be written. 
> 
> 
> If the facts don't fit your argument you try to change the facts. 
> Words have specific meanings and implications.  If they don't
> differentiate particular ideas then communication fails.  In this case
> you are a failure.
> 
> 'Writing' has one particular set of meanings and implications. 
> 'Printing', 'manufacturing' and 'stamping' have others.
> 
> Something that can be 'read' may have been written, or it may be
> 'printed' or it may be 'stamped', or it may be 'manufactured'.  Just
> because the word 'read' has been used for the process of reading does
> not make all the other terms synonomous with each other.
> 
> 
>>In human readable writing humans have done everything from
>>pressing wooden tools into clay pads to braile typewriters, there are more
>>ways of writing than I can count. 
> 
> 
> Well at least you've demonstrated that you can count to 2.
> 
> And you have actually identified mechanism of _writing_.  Now if you
> to carefully think about those particular examples you may be able to
> find something in common: they are all sequential, one character or
> word at a time.  That is the essence of 'writing' that differentiates
> it from other mechanisms that are 'page at a time' (printing) or
> similar.
> 
> 
>>Just as today CD-ROMS may be modified with updated information (you may need
>>to ask someone what the yellowbook is and read up on multi-session).
> 
> 
> Actually, NO, you are wrong again.  CD-_ROM_s cannot be modified,
> cannot be added to with multi-session.  You can only do that with CD-R
> or CD-RW.  It is possible to turn a CD-R into acting like a CD-ROM,
> but CD-ROMs are manufactured (not 'written') using a stamping process
> which is quite different to the process of writing a CD-R or CD-RW.
> 
> You may want to make a note that when a CD-ROM is manufactured it is
> done in one process that stamps it all at once.  When a CD-R or CD-RW
> is _written_ it is done sequentially one byte at a time.  This is why
> there are different words.
> 
> Back to the punch cards, I dug up some old details of one of the first
> systems that I was involved with.  Due to NZ decimalising the currency
> in the late 60s an old unit record system working in pounds, shillings
> and pence, had to be re-implemented on a new-fangled computer.
> 
> The unit record sales order system had the order details key punched
> into them with customer, order number, product code, quantity. Sorted
> to product sequence it was match against the product master card deck
> on the collator and the price and description were added to the order
> line card by punching into the appropriate columns.  These were then
> processed through the 555 Calculator, using a plug board program,
> which read each card, multiplied the quantity by price and then
> punched the result (in Pounds, shillings and pence, including
> halfpennies) into further columns of the same card.
> 
> Sort back to order number and its ready for printing invoices on the
> tabulator.
> 
> In spite of your adamant assertions you seem to know little about this
> subject at all.
> 
> 
> 
>>>The only reason that ENIAC 'failed' is that it was not completed until
>>>1946, too late to be useful in WWII.
>>
>>Again you got it completely wrong.  DOW knew that WWII was not the end of
>>guns, the ENIAC failed as a machine used for trajectory calculations because
>>it could not be used in the field.  It was too sensitive to handle the
>>environmental needs.  It was too large.  It consumed too much electricity.
> 
> 
> There was never any requirement for it to be used in the field. It was
> to speed up the existing process, done for decades by human
> 'computers' and for some years by electonic analog computers of
> producing trajectory tables to be printed in books for use by field
> guns.
> 
> I suggest that you study some actual history on the subject before
> pontificating down the wrong path.
> 
> 
>>With the advent of microprocessors it has been possible to use electronic
>>digital computers in more trajectory calculations.  But the 16 inch naval
>>guns still use their original analog computers, it was decided that using
>>microprocessors would be an extra cost with zero benefit.
> 
> 
> 'has' ? 'still' ?
> 
> I suspect that you have your decades mixed up.  It may well be that in
> the 60s it was decided to keep the analog computer made in the 40s and
> 50s, but that was nearly 40 years ago, deciding about 50 year old
> systems which were probably soon to be decommissioned.  Just how many
> of those 50 year old guns are still in use now ?

None - there are no commissioned battleships in any navy. Of the last 
four US  battleships, the MO is in Pearl, the NJ is on the Delaware, and 
I have no idea about the Iowa and WI.

However, their analog computers were never replaced. There was nothing 
better/cheaper - ie they worked extremely well, and there was no need to 
  replace them, so why spend money on something you don't need?

Roy

> 
> Even in WWII Navy guns were being layed automatically by _electronic_
> analog computers taking inputs from radar.  Are you claiming that the
> US is still 60 years behind ?
> 
> 
>>Like many things even though the ENIAC did not come close to doing what DOW
>>wanted it did open up another door.
> 
> 
> It did exactly what the DOW expected.  However, development took
> rather too long (as I already said):
> 
> """ENIAC was completed too late to be used for its original purpose of
> calculating firing tables for artillery weapons. Instead, the first
> real task assigned to ENIAC during its test runs in 1945 involved
> millions of discrete calculations associated with top-secret studies
> of thermonuclear chain reactions--the hydrogen bomb."""



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
0
millers (188)
12/7/2003 11:48:31 PM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312071318.30d1762b@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> >  Within that it gets even more confusing when you add eraseable
> > read/only.  A good contemporary example is the CD, it is a ROM device
that
> > is used for off-line storage sometimes eraseable (that is why it is
called
> > CD-ROM).
>
> I do agree that you have found it very confusing.
>
> CD stands for 'Compact Disk' and this is a design than specifies the
> size of the media and how the data is laid out in various ways with
> tracks and error corrections.  It does not specify the process of
> manufacturing nor how it may be implemented.
>
> Music CDs and CD-ROMs are usually manufactured by 'stamping' a pattern
> onto a  disk while forming it from a blob of plastic, then coating
> this with reflective and protective layers.  These, as the acronym
> implies, are Read Only and can be 'erased' by, say, a piece of
> sandpaper, or a corrosive liquid.
>
> Other mechanisms for making CDs include CD-R and CD-RW where a blank
> disk is manufactured and then 'written' (using the correct meaning of
> this word - sequentially) with the required data.  These are not
> CD-ROMs, but they can be made 'Read Only' by setting particular data
> on them that software will recognise as meaning that it shouldn't
> write to these anymore.
>
> You may also be confused by the fact that a CD-ROM _drive_ cannot
> write.  The 'ROM' in that case refers to the drive, not to the CD,
> which may also be a CD-R or CD-RW.
>
> Magnetic tapes, VCR tapes, files on hard disks, or even whole
> partitions, can be marked as 'read only' which then prevents writing
> but only insofar as the software actions this attribute.
>
> Does this make VCR Tape or hard disks into 'ROMs' too ?  They may
> _function_ as if they were ROMs, but they are still writable.

VCR's and hard disks are meant to be generally used as a R/W devices, so the
term ROM does not generally apply.  There are exceptions to most rules:
Hard disks and can be write protected which by definition makes them Read
Only Memory devices,  Calling a VCR tape ROM stretches the term since they
are generally not refered to as memory devices even though they technically
are memory.

Several years ago when I first got into CD publishing (1X SCSI-I device) I
thought it would be a good idea to read the yellowbook.  Reading the book
was not all that helpful in that I used Corel's CD creator (win 3) and it
did all of the work for me.  I just looked up the current specification and
it does specify three classes of CD-ROM's including factory stamped, CD-R,
and CD-RW.  All three are still Compact Disk Read Only Memories and as such
still a classic specification of what a ROM is.

I know that the concept of a published standard like the yellowbook are
above your reading skills but you might see if you can get someone to read
it for you and explain it to you.


0
randy482 (428)
12/8/2003 3:06:12 AM
"Charles Richmond" <richchas@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3FD2F86B.34088FA9@comcast.net...
> Randy McLaughlin wrote:
> >
> >           [snip...]         [snip...]         [snip...]
> >
> > Again you got it completely wrong.  DOW knew that WWII was not the end
of
> > guns, the ENIAC failed as a machine used for trajectory calculations
because
> > it could not be used in the field.  It was too sensitive to handle the
> > environmental needs.  It was too large.  It consumed too much
electricity.
> > With the advent of microprocessors it has been possible to use
electronic
> > digital computers in more trajectory calculations.  But the 16 inch
naval
> > guns still use their original analog computers, it was decided that
using
> > microprocessors would be an extra cost with zero benefit.
> >
> Another good point is that those gears and levers of the analog
> computer are little affected by an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse),
> such as those generated by nuclear weapons exploded high in the
> atmosphere...while most microprocessors would be fried.
>
> AFAIK, the ENIAC was *never* envisioned as being used out in
> the field. The ENIAC was to calculate all the trajectories for
> a specific gun. These would then be printed in book form and
> the book would go out in the field.
>
> The ENIAC did come in handy later for making calculations
> related to the hydrogen bomb.
>
> --
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+
> |   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+

Actually the ENIAC project was meant to lead to a field device.

While the smaller guns used tables the larger guns trajectories were
calculated on site.


0
randy482 (428)
12/8/2003 3:08:27 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312071116.f29f@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > > No. Wrong.  Diode Matricies are not 'written', they are manufactured.
> >
> > Why do you keep showing so much of what you don't know.  Anything read
must
> > first be written.
>
> If the facts don't fit your argument you try to change the facts.
> Words have specific meanings and implications.  If they don't
> differentiate particular ideas then communication fails.  In this case
> you are a failure.
>
> 'Writing' has one particular set of meanings and implications.
> 'Printing', 'manufacturing' and 'stamping' have others.
>
> Something that can be 'read' may have been written, or it may be
> 'printed' or it may be 'stamped', or it may be 'manufactured'.  Just
> because the word 'read' has been used for the process of reading does
> not make all the other terms synonomous with each other.
>
> > In human readable writing humans have done everything from
> > pressing wooden tools into clay pads to braile typewriters, there are
more
> > ways of writing than I can count.
>
> Well at least you've demonstrated that you can count to 2.
>
> And you have actually identified mechanism of _writing_.  Now if you
> to carefully think about those particular examples you may be able to
> find something in common: they are all sequential, one character or
> word at a time.  That is the essence of 'writing' that differentiates
> it from other mechanisms that are 'page at a time' (printing) or
> similar.

You obviously do not understand what writing is, you try and parse it to
mean what you want it to mean.  You may not have any reference materials,
but if you ask someone else real nice they may take you to a library and you
can lookup the word write (it's in the book called a dictionary).  In that
book you can lookup the definition of the word write.

>
> > Just as today CD-ROMS may be modified with updated information (you may
need
> > to ask someone what the yellowbook is and read up on multi-session).
>
> Actually, NO, you are wrong again.  CD-_ROM_s cannot be modified,
> cannot be added to with multi-session.  You can only do that with CD-R
> or CD-RW.  It is possible to turn a CD-R into acting like a CD-ROM,
> but CD-ROMs are manufactured (not 'written') using a stamping process
> which is quite different to the process of writing a CD-R or CD-RW.
>
> You may want to make a note that when a CD-ROM is manufactured it is
> done in one process that stamps it all at once.  When a CD-R or CD-RW
> is _written_ it is done sequentially one byte at a time.  This is why
> there are different words.

Actually if you have someone read and explain to you the yellowbook you will
find that they specifically describe CD, CD-R, and CD-RW all as CD-ROM's.  I
know you believe you know more than anyone who contributed to the
yellowbook, but I and I assume others accept it as the standard on CD-ROMs.

>
> Back to the punch cards, I dug up some old details of one of the first
> systems that I was involved with.  Due to NZ decimalising the currency
> in the late 60s an old unit record system working in pounds, shillings
> and pence, had to be re-implemented on a new-fangled computer.
>
> The unit record sales order system had the order details key punched
> into them with customer, order number, product code, quantity. Sorted
> to product sequence it was match against the product master card deck
> on the collator and the price and description were added to the order
> line card by punching into the appropriate columns.  These were then
> processed through the 555 Calculator, using a plug board program,
> which read each card, multiplied the quantity by price and then
> punched the result (in Pounds, shillings and pence, including
> halfpennies) into further columns of the same card.
>
> Sort back to order number and its ready for printing invoices on the
> tabulator.
>
> In spite of your adamant assertions you seem to know little about this
> subject at all.
>
>
> > > The only reason that ENIAC 'failed' is that it was not completed until
> > > 1946, too late to be useful in WWII.
> >
> > Again you got it completely wrong.  DOW knew that WWII was not the end
of
> > guns, the ENIAC failed as a machine used for trajectory calculations
because
> > it could not be used in the field.  It was too sensitive to handle the
> > environmental needs.  It was too large.  It consumed too much
electricity.
>
> There was never any requirement for it to be used in the field. It was
> to speed up the existing process, done for decades by human
> 'computers' and for some years by electonic analog computers of
> producing trajectory tables to be printed in books for use by field
> guns.
>
> I suggest that you study some actual history on the subject before
> pontificating down the wrong path.
>
> > With the advent of microprocessors it has been possible to use
electronic
> > digital computers in more trajectory calculations.  But the 16 inch
naval
> > guns still use their original analog computers, it was decided that
using
> > microprocessors would be an extra cost with zero benefit.
>
> 'has' ? 'still' ?
>
> I suspect that you have your decades mixed up.  It may well be that in
> the 60s it was decided to keep the analog computer made in the 40s and
> 50s, but that was nearly 40 years ago, deciding about 50 year old
> systems which were probably soon to be decommissioned.  Just how many
> of those 50 year old guns are still in use now ?
>
> Even in WWII Navy guns were being layed automatically by _electronic_
> analog computers taking inputs from radar.  Are you claiming that the
> US is still 60 years behind ?

The 16" guns I specified never used RADAR.  If you knew anything about 16"
guns you would know that they were over the horizon weapons and as such
RADAR can not be used.  In the eighties two battleships were taken out of
mothballs and completely refurbished.  All systems were brought up to date.
The trajectory computers used by the 16" guns had no electronic components,
there was a study made and it was decided that the original analog computers
would be kept.  They never did have an electronic interface of any type, not
to the RADAR system nor anything else.

>
> > Like many things even though the ENIAC did not come close to doing what
DOW
> > wanted it did open up another door.
>
> It did exactly what the DOW expected.  However, development took
> rather too long (as I already said):
>
> """ENIAC was completed too late to be used for its original purpose of
> calculating firing tables for artillery weapons. Instead, the first
> real task assigned to ENIAC during its test runs in 1945 involved
> millions of discrete calculations associated with top-secret studies
> of thermonuclear chain reactions--the hydrogen bomb."""


0
randy482 (428)
12/8/2003 3:35:59 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312071138.2f282a2@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > > > DOW had specific plans to quickly calculate artillery
> > > > trajectories.  To my knowledge that plan failed (at least for the
> >  digital
> > > > side) they ended up using analog computers that were 100% mechanical
>
> Let us examine this 100% mechanical.  Yes the original Bush
> differential analysers were mechanical, but around the early 40s:
>
> """Fortunately, at this time there was a very talented group at the
> Moore School under the direction of Professor Brainerd and as a result
> of Lieutenant Gillon's discussions with the professor and his
> associates, Assistant Professor Weygand undertook to develop an
> electronic torque amplifier to replace the mechanical torque
> amplifiers on the Bush differential analyzers. This work was eminently
> successful and in a rather brief period of time.
>
> In addition, photoelectric followers were developed by the Moore
> School group for both the input and output tables of the analyzer. As
> a result of these accomplishments the productive capacity of the
> analyzers at both the Moore School and at Aberdeen were enhanced by at
> least an order of magnitude.""""
>
> Your "to my knowledge" seems to have failed again.
>
> > Like many things even though the ENIAC did not come close to doing what
DOW
> > wanted it did open up another door.
>
> I thought that these particular items showed just how far wrong you
> are:
>
> """The Chore contract and others completed during this period proved
> the ENIAC's worth. Other machines, among them the Bush differential
> analyzer and the Bell relay calculator, would have required a
> prohibitive length of time to complete the problems that were assigned
> to the ENIAC,"""
>
>
> """For example, a skilled person with a desk calculator could compute
> a 60- second trajectory in about 20 hours. The analog differential
> analyzer produced the same result in 15 minutes. ENIAC required 30
> seconds--just half the time of the projectile's flight.
>
> The ENIAC led the computer field during the period 1949 through 1952
> when it served as the main computation workhorse for the solution of
> the scientific problems of the Nation. It surpassed all other existing
> computers put together whenever it came to problems involving a large
> number of arithmetic operations. It was the major instrument for the
> computation of all ballistic tables for the U.S. Army and Air
> Force."""
>
> Did you note that last sentence ?
>
> ENIACs only 'failure' was that it was too late to be used in WWII for
> which it was wanted.

I don't know why you would post clipped messages without having someone read
them to you first.

Gun trajectories were done basically two ways for centuries:  Look-up tables
(pre-calculated) and individual calculations.

The smaller guns generally had look-up tables the bigger guns were generally
calculated in the field.

The ENIAC was meant to handle both.  As a general purpose device it was
thought it could replace the analog computers (and hand calculated
trajectories).  It failed to replace the field computers, even forty years
later the decedents of the ENIAC were not able to replace the 40+ year old
analog computers.  The fact that other analog computing devices improved
does not show that the ENIAC completed its goals.  As I said the ENIAC may
have failed to become a field device, but it did open doors that have lead
to where we are today.

It is interesting to see that people patted themselves on their backs about
the great job they did in completing their tasks.  What they did was succeed
in completing 1/2 of their task, but more importantly they created the 21st
century world.


0
randy482 (428)
12/8/2003 3:51:22 AM
Exegete <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote 

> >>With the advent of microprocessors it has been possible to use electronic
> >>digital computers in more trajectory calculations.  But the 16 inch naval
> >>guns still use their original analog computers, it was decided that using
> >>microprocessors would be an extra cost with zero benefit.
> > 
> > 'has' ? 'still' ?
> > 
> > I suspect that you have your decades mixed up.  It may well be that in
> > the 60s it was decided to keep the analog computer made in the 40s and
> > 50s, but that was nearly 40 years ago, deciding about 50 year old
> > systems which were probably soon to be decommissioned.  Just how many
> > of those 50 year old guns are still in use now ?
> 
> None - there are no commissioned battleships in any navy. Of the last 
> four US  battleships, the MO is in Pearl, the NJ is on the Delaware, and 
> I have no idea about the Iowa and WI.

Yes, I did think that his 'still' was rather optimistic.  It seems
they all went away at the end of the 80s.
 
> However, their analog computers were never replaced. There was nothing 
> better/cheaper - ie they worked extremely well, and there was no need to 
>   replace them, so why spend money on something you don't need?

It seems that all the of the last few battleships spent many years
decommisioned only being brought back in '69 and '81 for bombarding
shore positions in Vietnam and Syria for short periods.  This hardly
requires high tech calculations.  Also the ships were fitted with
modern missiles as their main armament (Harpoon and Tomahawk) in 1981
so they did have highly computerised systems.

I also doubt that they are the same type of analog computers that were
used in calculating trajectories.  There is a vast difference between
having to do the calculations of trajectory to create the book of
tables, and _using_ those tables in gun laying.  A distinction that
RMcL doesn't seem to make.
0
riplin (4127)
12/8/2003 5:27:49 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312072127.26f3b49a@posting.google.com...
> Exegete <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote
>
> > >>With the advent of microprocessors it has been possible to use
electronic
> > >>digital computers in more trajectory calculations.  But the 16 inch
naval
> > >>guns still use their original analog computers, it was decided that
using
> > >>microprocessors would be an extra cost with zero benefit.
> > >
> > > 'has' ? 'still' ?
> > >
> > > I suspect that you have your decades mixed up.  It may well be that in
> > > the 60s it was decided to keep the analog computer made in the 40s and
> > > 50s, but that was nearly 40 years ago, deciding about 50 year old
> > > systems which were probably soon to be decommissioned.  Just how many
> > > of those 50 year old guns are still in use now ?
> >
> > None - there are no commissioned battleships in any navy. Of the last
> > four US  battleships, the MO is in Pearl, the NJ is on the Delaware, and
> > I have no idea about the Iowa and WI.
>
> Yes, I did think that his 'still' was rather optimistic.  It seems
> they all went away at the end of the 80s.

I can not say if they are still in commision since the Navy mothballs ships
and recommissions them from time to time.  In the 1980's some of the old
battleships were taken out of mothballs and refitted and recommissioned.  At
least one was used in the Gulf war.  Seeing that the ships go for many
decades after refitting I assume they are still out there threatening to
blow the s**t out of anything that gets in their way.  They were revived
after it was found out that the aluminum plating used in some ships can
actually catch on fire and burn (read up on the last Faulklands war & the
Exocet missle) and the fact that pointing a gun with a 16" barrell tended to
be a scary thought.

>
> > However, their analog computers were never replaced. There was nothing
> > better/cheaper - ie they worked extremely well, and there was no need to
> >   replace them, so why spend money on something you don't need?
>
> It seems that all the of the last few battleships spent many years
> decommisioned only being brought back in '69 and '81 for bombarding
> shore positions in Vietnam and Syria for short periods.  This hardly
> requires high tech calculations.  Also the ships were fitted with
> modern missiles as their main armament (Harpoon and Tomahawk) in 1981
> so they did have highly computerised systems.

It does require extreme high tech calculations to drop a shell over the
horizon and hit a target that is measured in single digit meters (originally
included targeting other ships).

>
> I also doubt that they are the same type of analog computers that were
> used in calculating trajectories.  There is a vast difference between
> having to do the calculations of trajectory to create the book of
> tables, and _using_ those tables in gun laying.  A distinction that
> RMcL doesn't seem to make.


In 1991 the 16" guns shelled Iraq from more than 30 miles out.  It was done
without line of site and it was done without needing to use "modern"
electronics.  When they were re-commissioned they had a huge amount of high
tech equipment added yet the 16" guns were designed in the 1800's and it was
the 16" guns that was a major reason to re-commission them.  The fact that
the 16" guns are an old technology, like the wheel it still has meaning
today.

Quite a few technologies are seen as antiquated, analog computers are
ignored because they are seen thus.  Everyone forgets that older technology
still pops up every once in a while like the fact the only probe ever to
land on Venus had it's electronics based on vacuum tubes.


0
randy482 (428)
12/8/2003 6:05:48 AM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote 

> You obviously do not understand what writing is, you try and parse it to
> mean what you want it to mean. 

ROFL, that's just what I said to you.  Do try to be original at least.

> All systems were brought up to date.
> The trajectory computers used by the 16" guns had no electronic components,
> there was a study made and it was decided that the original analog computers
> would be kept.  They never did have an electronic interface of any type, not
> to the RADAR system nor anything else.

No. And nor was it needed.  The ship was fitted with cuise missiles -
Harpoon and Tomahawk - for precise attacks.  The guns were only used
for area barrage for which the back of an envelope (and a trajectory
book) was all that was required.
 
[RMcL's trolls removed]
0
riplin (4127)
12/8/2003 6:50:44 AM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote 

> I just looked up the current specification and
> it does specify three classes of CD-ROM's including factory stamped, CD-R,
> and CD-RW.  All three are still Compact Disk Read Only Memories and as such
> still a classic specification of what a ROM is.

It seems that you simply can't follow an argument even when you make
it.  The difference between the making of a CD-ROM from raw plastic
and from a CD-R is that the first is 'stamped', as you say, and the
2nd is 'written', becoming a ROM only when all sessions are finalised
_OR_ they are in a CD-ROM drive which has no writing mechanism.

CD-RWs are not 'Read Only' ROMs, except when in CD-ROM drives.

Where you are wrong about the Yellow Book is that is it not a
discussion about CD technology but is a document describing one format
that CD-ROMs, CD-Rs and CD-RWs may be created with.

"""There are several formats used for CD-ROM data, including Green
Book CD-ROM, White Book CD-ROM and Yellow Book CD-ROM. ISO 9660
defines a standard file system."""
0
riplin (4127)
12/8/2003 7:03:30 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312072250.4d6be79d@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > You obviously do not understand what writing is, you try and parse it to
> > mean what you want it to mean.
>
> ROFL, that's just what I said to you.  Do try to be original at least.
>
> > All systems were brought up to date.
> > The trajectory computers used by the 16" guns had no electronic
components,
> > there was a study made and it was decided that the original analog
computers
> > would be kept.  They never did have an electronic interface of any type,
not
> > to the RADAR system nor anything else.
>
> No. And nor was it needed.  The ship was fitted with cuise missiles -
> Harpoon and Tomahawk - for precise attacks.  The guns were only used
> for area barrage for which the back of an envelope (and a trajectory
> book) was all that was required.
>
> [RMcL's trolls removed]

I have no naval expertise, nor am I trying to pretend to.  I have a buddy I
can always listen to if I need to since he was a weapons officer on a sub
and spent a good part of his life in the navy and has a wealth of naval
history in his head.  The discussion came from the use of computers to
calculate trajectories.  Now you want to imply that the battleships used
their 16" guns just for barrages, what little I know I can state that most
of the barrages were done using tables (but not for the 16" guns instead for
the 5" guns).  The 16" guns were the "smart" weapons of the early 20th
century able to be used both in a barrage and able to make relatively
precise bombardments - taking out single targets when needed.  You want to
imply you have some special knowledge of battleship techniques which you
don't.  I have no special knowledge myself, but obviously I have more than
you.  You made two strange and wrong statements that the guns were only used
for area barrage and that it could be done with a trajectory book both
statements are lies.  The guns were used for a variety of uses including but
not limited to clearing an area of jungle in Viet Nam to land helicopters,
sinking individual ships at sea, taking out individual buildings on land,
etc.  To my knowledge there never was a trajectory book for the 16" guns
(not needed).


0
randy482 (428)
12/8/2003 7:27:14 AM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote


> Gun trajectories were done basically two ways for centuries:  Look-up tables
> (pre-calculated) and individual calculations.
> 
> The smaller guns generally had look-up tables the bigger guns were generally
> calculated in the field.

These are completely different sets of calculations.  For a particular
weapon the tables are produced taking into account all the variables. 
These take months by manual calculation.

The 2nd set of calculations is done _using_ the tables to combine the
conditions applying at the time the gun is to be fired and uses data
from several tables to arrive at the loading, elevation, and fusing.

For very large guns additional variables need to be considered, such
as barrel wear and tempearture.  This makes the manual calculations
_from_the_tables_ more complicated and some automation worth while.

The calculation of raw trajectories was never done in the field in
WWII.
 
> The ENIAC was meant to handle both. 

Complete nonsense.  Or putting it another way: supply a reference
other than your own uninformed opinion.

> As a general purpose device it was
> thought it could replace the analog computers (and hand calculated
> trajectories). 

In fact it did.  Let us look at the devices it did replace:

"""Bush's final, giant incarnation of his machine was called the
"Rockefeller Differential Analyzer" (RDA). He demonstrated the RDA on
13 December 1941, to friends at MIT. It was a subdued affair occuring
in the shadow of the infamous events of the previous week.
Nevertheless, the RDA became operational for the war effort in 1942
and was used throughout the campaign, computing long-range tables for
the gunnery of the U.S. navy."""

And a description of this:

"""Financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, this machine used
electronics. The input was from punched tapes. It weighed 100 tons and
had 2000 vacuum tubes, 200 miles of wire, 150 motors, and thousands of
relays. It provided an order of magnitude better accuracy than the
differential analyzer. It was kept busy during the Second World
War."""

Far from being your "100% mechanical" the machines used to calculate
trajectories for the gunnery tables were not.  Nor were they the same
machines that were used on board the ships, though those may have been
somewhat simpler versions of Bush's earlier and smaller mechanical
differential analysers.

> It failed to replace the field computers, even forty years
> later the decedents of the ENIAC were not able to replace the 40+ year old
> analog computers.

That is an invalid conclusion.  There is no indication that they were
not able to, only that there was no need to, there was no requirement
for the guns that would not be met by the existing equipment.  This
was partly because any additional precision was provided by the fully
computerised cruise missiles that were installed.

> As I said the ENIAC may
> have failed to become a field device,

You may have said it, but so far you are the _only_ one that has ever
said it.

> It is interesting to see that people patted themselves on their backs about
> the great job they did in completing their tasks.  What they did was succeed
> in completing 1/2 of their task, 

Until you can provide any _evidence_ of such a task I will consider
that you are uninformed about reality.
0
riplin (4127)
12/8/2003 7:30:41 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312072303.73d3a57d@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > I just looked up the current specification and
> > it does specify three classes of CD-ROM's including factory stamped,
CD-R,
> > and CD-RW.  All three are still Compact Disk Read Only Memories and as
such
> > still a classic specification of what a ROM is.
>
> It seems that you simply can't follow an argument even when you make
> it.  The difference between the making of a CD-ROM from raw plastic
> and from a CD-R is that the first is 'stamped', as you say, and the
> 2nd is 'written', becoming a ROM only when all sessions are finalised
> _OR_ they are in a CD-ROM drive which has no writing mechanism.
>
> CD-RWs are not 'Read Only' ROMs, except when in CD-ROM drives.
>
> Where you are wrong about the Yellow Book is that is it not a
> discussion about CD technology but is a document describing one format
> that CD-ROMs, CD-Rs and CD-RWs may be created with.
>
> """There are several formats used for CD-ROM data, including Green
> Book CD-ROM, White Book CD-ROM and Yellow Book CD-ROM. ISO 9660
> defines a standard file system."""

Agreed there are more than one standard in CD-ROMS, but the yellowbook is
the leader which like all other standards describes publishing (synonym for
writing for those to ignorant to comprehend) CD-ROMs wheather they are CDs,
CD-Rs, or CD-RWs.  The term CD-ROM is not limited to the pressed CDs but
also includes CD-Rs and CD-RWs.

And since you are to ignorant to read the yellowbook I will tell you that
ISO 9660 is one of the formats defined in the yellowbook not a separate
format you obviously believe.  ISO 9660 is the defacto standard and that is
one of the reasons why the yellowbook is the defacto standard.

If you insist on clipping things off web pages at least go to the effort of
reading them first.


0
randy482 (428)
12/8/2003 7:38:22 AM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote

> describes publishing (synonym for
> writing for those to ignorant to comprehend) 

Your attempt to support your view that the word 'writing' is
synonomous with every other word is only based on your desire to never
admit you could possibly be wrong.

Take for example a book.  An author may _write_ a book by putting down
each word one after another.  I defy you to find anywhere (except
youir own misuse) where 'writing a book' is used for the process of
publishing or printing.

Yes, CD-Rs and CD-RWs are 'written', by exactly the process implied by
the word.  These may result in the media becoming a CD-ROM (no longer
writable) or acting as one.  You mistakenly extrapolate this to mean
that stamped CD-ROMs are also 'written'.

But I do note that you completely avoid the issues where you are
demonstrated to be wrong, such as punched cards, which was the actual
issue.
0
riplin (4127)
12/8/2003 5:52:18 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote

> > No. And nor was it needed.  The ship was fitted with cuise missiles -
> > Harpoon and Tomahawk - for precise attacks.  The guns were only used
> > for area barrage for which the back of an envelope (and a trajectory
> > book) was all that was required.

> The 16" guns were the "smart" weapons of the early 20th
> century able to be used both in a barrage and able to make relatively
> precise bombardments - taking out single targets when needed.  

The ships were brought back into commission for Korea, Vietnam and
Syria for the purpose of bombarding land targets, and in the case of
the 1980s for carrying cruise missiles.  This is a matter of record. 
16" guns were never 'smart' weapons, certainly not those of the US
from WWII.

There was not any need for their original purpose of fighting opposing
capital ships because there were none to fight in those areas.  This
relates to whether there was a need to update the systems.  There was
not.  Land based targets tend to be fixed and sea level radar not
particularly useful.  Precise targetting with large artillery against
a fixed target is a primarily a matter of incremental adjustment until
the target is hit.

> You made two strange and wrong statements that the guns were only used
> for area barrage 

And the size of an 'area' is ?

> and that it could be done with a trajectory book both
> statements are lies. 

Yes. It _could_ be done with a trajectory book, just like it is with
every other gun.  I see no evidence that they carried the 100 ton
version of the mechanical computers that took many minutes to
calculate a single trajectory as used at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
 In any case these were too late to be included in the original
commissioning.  If it was Bush analogs then they would have had
versions of the earlier and simpler and slower designes that took much
longer to calculate actual trajectory data to put into the tables.

Even ENIAC would have been too slow to keep up with the firing rate.  

What gun laying computers do is _use_ the tables produced by long and
detailed calculations to quickly provide the required settings.  These
may not necessarily be actual paper books but will be encoded into the
workings of the computer.  That is the computer is manufactured
specifically for those particular guns based on the tables calculated
for them.

> The guns were used for a variety of uses including but
> not limited to clearing an area of jungle in Viet Nam to land helicopters,
> sinking individual ships at sea, taking out individual buildings on land,
> etc.  

> To my knowledge there never was a trajectory book for the 16" guns
> (not needed).

So, you _do_ claim special 'knowledge' on this.
0
riplin (4127)
12/8/2003 6:34:32 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote 

> > AFAIK, the ENIAC was *never* envisioned as being used out in
> > the field. The ENIAC was to calculate all the trajectories for
> > a specific gun. These would then be printed in book form and
> > the book would go out in the field.
> >
> > The ENIAC did come in handy later for making calculations
> > related to the hydrogen bomb.

> Actually the ENIAC project was meant to lead to a field device.

'Leading to' a field device is not the same as 'becoming' a field
device.  The work done in the 1940 _has_ lead to devices used in the
field.

In order for you to claim a failure (which no one else seems to have
noticed) then you need to provide references that show such an
objective in the project that has not been fullfilled by derivitive
machines.
 
> While the smaller guns used tables the larger guns trajectories were
> calculated on site.

You are still confusing trajectory calculations to create the tables
and gun laying calculations using those tables, built into the
calculating machines.

They are quite different sets of formulas.
0
riplin (4127)
12/8/2003 6:43:45 PM

Randy McLaughlin wrote:
> "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:217e491a.0312072127.26f3b49a@posting.google.com...
> 
>>Exegete <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>>With the advent of microprocessors it has been possible to use
> 
> electronic
> 
>>>>>digital computers in more trajectory calculations.  But the 16 inch
> 
> naval
> 
>>>>>guns still use their original analog computers, it was decided that
> 
> using
> 
>>>>>microprocessors would be an extra cost with zero benefit.
>>>>
>>>>'has' ? 'still' ?
>>>>
>>>>I suspect that you have your decades mixed up.  It may well be that in
>>>>the 60s it was decided to keep the analog computer made in the 40s and
>>>>50s, but that was nearly 40 years ago, deciding about 50 year old
>>>>systems which were probably soon to be decommissioned.  Just how many
>>>>of those 50 year old guns are still in use now ?
>>>
>>>None - there are no commissioned battleships in any navy. Of the last
>>>four US  battleships, the MO is in Pearl, the NJ is on the Delaware, and
>>>I have no idea about the Iowa and WI.
>>
>>Yes, I did think that his 'still' was rather optimistic.  It seems
>>they all went away at the end of the 80s.
> 
> 
> I can not say if they are still in commision since the Navy mothballs ships
> and recommissions them from time to time.  In the 1980's some of the old
> battleships were taken out of mothballs and refitted and recommissioned.  At
> least one was used in the Gulf war.  Seeing that the ships go for many
> decades after refitting I assume they are still out there threatening to
> blow the s**t out of anything that gets in their way.  

Your assumption is incorrect. They have all been decommissioned, and I 
know that two have not been mothballed, and I assume the same is true of 
the other two.

My son-in-law is learning engineering at the Naval Graduate school - and 
  and reports that there are some in the Navy who think there is still a 
place for those ships, esp. since with technological advances and modern 
engines they could have much smaller crews and be much cheaper to run, 
while still having not only their 16" guns, but they are great platforms 
for launching various missiles. In addition, other than nuclear weapons, 
no one has weapons that can take them out, modern anti ship weapons are 
designed to take out modern ships, and none of them were designed to 
take hits from old fashioned naval guns. The result is that modern anti 
ship missiles will ruin the paint job of a battleship, and that's about 
all they can do.

Roy

They were revived
> after it was found out that the aluminum plating used in some ships can
> actually catch on fire and burn (read up on the last Faulklands war & the
> Exocet missle) and the fact that pointing a gun with a 16" barrell tended to
> be a scary thought.
> 
> 
>>>However, their analog computers were never replaced. There was nothing
>>>better/cheaper - ie they worked extremely well, and there was no need to
>>>  replace them, so why spend money on something you don't need?
>>
>>It seems that all the of the last few battleships spent many years
>>decommisioned only being brought back in '69 and '81 for bombarding
>>shore positions in Vietnam and Syria for short periods.  This hardly
>>requires high tech calculations.  Also the ships were fitted with
>>modern missiles as their main armament (Harpoon and Tomahawk) in 1981
>>so they did have highly computerised systems.
> 
> 
> It does require extreme high tech calculations to drop a shell over the
> horizon and hit a target that is measured in single digit meters (originally
> included targeting other ships).
> 
> 
>>I also doubt that they are the same type of analog computers that were
>>used in calculating trajectories.  There is a vast difference between
>>having to do the calculations of trajectory to create the book of
>>tables, and _using_ those tables in gun laying.  A distinction that
>>RMcL doesn't seem to make.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1991 the 16" guns shelled Iraq from more than 30 miles out.  It was done
> without line of site and it was done without needing to use "modern"
> electronics.  When they were re-commissioned they had a huge amount of high
> tech equipment added yet the 16" guns were designed in the 1800's and it was
> the 16" guns that was a major reason to re-commission them.  The fact that
> the 16" guns are an old technology, like the wheel it still has meaning
> today.
> 
> Quite a few technologies are seen as antiquated, analog computers are
> ignored because they are seen thus.  Everyone forgets that older technology
> still pops up every once in a while like the fact the only probe ever to
> land on Venus had it's electronics based on vacuum tubes.
> 
> 



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
0
millers (188)
12/8/2003 7:12:42 PM

Richard wrote:

> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote 
> 
> 
>>You obviously do not understand what writing is, you try and parse it to
>>mean what you want it to mean. 
> 
> 
> ROFL, that's just what I said to you.  Do try to be original at least.
> 
> 
>>All systems were brought up to date.
>>The trajectory computers used by the 16" guns had no electronic components,
>>there was a study made and it was decided that the original analog computers
>>would be kept.  They never did have an electronic interface of any type, not
>>to the RADAR system nor anything else.
> 
> 
> No. And nor was it needed.  The ship was fitted with cuise missiles -
> Harpoon and Tomahawk - for precise attacks.  The guns were only used
> for area barrage for which the back of an envelope (and a trajectory
> book) was all that was required.

Sorry, but your latter comment is incorrect - there were sophisticated 
analog computers designed for the Iowa class battleships which were used 
for fire control.

Roy

>  
> [RMcL's trolls removed]



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
0
millers (188)
12/8/2003 7:14:43 PM
Exegete wrote:
> 
>        [snip...]           [snip...]           [snip...]
> 
> Sorry, but your latter comment is incorrect - there were sophisticated
> analog computers designed for the Iowa class battleships which were used
> for fire control.
> 
There were analog fire control computers even on World War
One era battleships...

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
0
richchas2 (320)
12/8/2003 9:40:10 PM
"Exegete" <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:3fd4cd2e$1_5@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
>
> Randy McLaughlin wrote:
<snip>
> > I can not say if they are still in commision since the Navy mothballs
ships
> > and recommissions them from time to time.  In the 1980's some of the old
> > battleships were taken out of mothballs and refitted and recommissioned.
At
> > least one was used in the Gulf war.  Seeing that the ships go for many
> > decades after refitting I assume they are still out there threatening to
> > blow the s**t out of anything that gets in their way.
>
> Your assumption is incorrect. They have all been decommissioned, and I
> know that two have not been mothballed, and I assume the same is true of
> the other two.
>
> My son-in-law is learning engineering at the Naval Graduate school - and
>   and reports that there are some in the Navy who think there is still a
> place for those ships, esp. since with technological advances and modern
> engines they could have much smaller crews and be much cheaper to run,
> while still having not only their 16" guns, but they are great platforms
> for launching various missiles. In addition, other than nuclear weapons,
> no one has weapons that can take them out, modern anti ship weapons are
> designed to take out modern ships, and none of them were designed to
> take hits from old fashioned naval guns. The result is that modern anti
> ship missiles will ruin the paint job of a battleship, and that's about
> all they can do.
>
> Roy

I remember reading about them when they were being refitted in the eighties
and being used as part of a diversion in the '91 war.  They make a
statement, if you've ever seen one you never forget the guns.

It makes sense you spend who knows how much money refitting them then use
them twice and then your done.  They were refitted in Reagan's term and used
effectively in both his and Bush 1 terms, obviously they were gotten rid of
when Clinton was prez.
<snip>


0
randy38 (638)
12/9/2003 12:58:29 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312081034.6e87425a@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > > No. And nor was it needed.  The ship was fitted with cuise missiles -
> > > Harpoon and Tomahawk - for precise attacks.  The guns were only used
> > > for area barrage for which the back of an envelope (and a trajectory
> > > book) was all that was required.
>
> > The 16" guns were the "smart" weapons of the early 20th
> > century able to be used both in a barrage and able to make relatively
> > precise bombardments - taking out single targets when needed.
>
> The ships were brought back into commission for Korea, Vietnam and
> Syria for the purpose of bombarding land targets, and in the case of
> the 1980s for carrying cruise missiles.  This is a matter of record.
> 16" guns were never 'smart' weapons, certainly not those of the US
> from WWII.

The ships were brought back into commission to do what an aircraft carrier
does, both are meant to display force.  Neither are used unless absolutely
necessary.  Like the aircraft carrier the battleship can be used for more
than just bombarding land based targets, both are meant to be able to bring
force to bear where needed whether it is a land based target or another
ship/fleet.  The 16" guns were never labeled "smart" since that was a term
that was recently coined, none the less they were "smart" weapons of WWII
since they were computer based weapons.

>
> There was not any need for their original purpose of fighting opposing
> capital ships because there were none to fight in those areas.  This
> relates to whether there was a need to update the systems.  There was
> not.  Land based targets tend to be fixed and sea level radar not
> particularly useful.  Precise targetting with large artillery against
> a fixed target is a primarily a matter of incremental adjustment until
> the target is hit.
>
> > You made two strange and wrong statements that the guns were only used
> > for area barrage
>
> And the size of an 'area' is ?
>
> > and that it could be done with a trajectory book both
> > statements are lies.
>
> Yes. It _could_ be done with a trajectory book, just like it is with
> every other gun.  I see no evidence that they carried the 100 ton
> version of the mechanical computers that took many minutes to
> calculate a single trajectory as used at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
>  In any case these were too late to be included in the original
> commissioning.  If it was Bush analogs then they would have had
> versions of the earlier and simpler and slower designes that took much
> longer to calculate actual trajectory data to put into the tables.
>
> Even ENIAC would have been too slow to keep up with the firing rate.
>
> What gun laying computers do is _use_ the tables produced by long and
> detailed calculations to quickly provide the required settings.  These
> may not necessarily be actual paper books but will be encoded into the
> workings of the computer.  That is the computer is manufactured
> specifically for those particular guns based on the tables calculated
> for them.

Again you show total ignorance of the 16" guns.  The 16" guns on the battle
ships were not tested on land, they were built into the ships and tested
there.  They did not use digital calculations the analog computers were
calibrated to the guns on board ship using live fire exercises.

>
> > The guns were used for a variety of uses including but
> > not limited to clearing an area of jungle in Viet Nam to land
helicopters,
> > sinking individual ships at sea, taking out individual buildings on
land,
> > etc.
>
> > To my knowledge there never was a trajectory book for the 16" guns
> > (not needed).
>
> So, you _do_ claim special 'knowledge' on this.

No I claim no special knoledge not published by common periodicals.  When
the ships were being refitted there were several article printed including
information on the original brains of the ships.

I have no special knowledge, but at least I do believe in reading and
finding out the truth.


0
randy38 (638)
12/9/2003 1:14:52 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312081043.39798454@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > > AFAIK, the ENIAC was *never* envisioned as being used out in
> > > the field. The ENIAC was to calculate all the trajectories for
> > > a specific gun. These would then be printed in book form and
> > > the book would go out in the field.
> > >
> > > The ENIAC did come in handy later for making calculations
> > > related to the hydrogen bomb.
>
> > Actually the ENIAC project was meant to lead to a field device.
>
> 'Leading to' a field device is not the same as 'becoming' a field
> device.  The work done in the 1940 _has_ lead to devices used in the
> field.
>
> In order for you to claim a failure (which no one else seems to have
> noticed) then you need to provide references that show such an
> objective in the project that has not been fullfilled by derivitive
> machines.

I only say that they failed in anything in the sense that they did not come
out with field oriented digital computers in what would be called a timely
manner.  Like many other research oriented endeavors the research starts out
going one direction and leads to a different result than expected.  In this
case it has lead to computing as we know it, step by step.
<snip>


0
randy38 (638)
12/9/2003 1:19:13 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312080952.6b58c549@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > describes publishing (synonym for
> > writing for those to ignorant to comprehend)
>
> Your attempt to support your view that the word 'writing' is
> synonomous with every other word is only based on your desire to never
> admit you could possibly be wrong.
>
> Take for example a book.  An author may _write_ a book by putting down
> each word one after another.  I defy you to find anywhere (except
> youir own misuse) where 'writing a book' is used for the process of
> publishing or printing.
>
> Yes, CD-Rs and CD-RWs are 'written', by exactly the process implied by
> the word.  These may result in the media becoming a CD-ROM (no longer
> writable) or acting as one.  You mistakenly extrapolate this to mean
> that stamped CD-ROMs are also 'written'.
>
> But I do note that you completely avoid the issues where you are
> demonstrated to be wrong, such as punched cards, which was the actual
> issue.

Again you show total ignorance and still refuse to have someone read to you
and explain the yellowbook.  The yellowbook defines the structures that can
be used to create a standard CD-ROM.  In your blissful ignorance you always
clip CD when the yellow book refers to CD, CD-R, and CD-RW.  All three are
examples of CD-ROMs as defined in the standard.  I brought up the yellowbook
so you could get someone to read it to you and you could start to find out
how a CD-ROM is written to.  How a person writes is not important, some
write left to right, some use pencils, some use smoke the fact that you do
not understand what writing is, is just humorous.


0
randy38 (638)
12/9/2003 1:30:46 AM
Exegete <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote 

> >  The guns were only used
> > for area barrage for which the back of an envelope (and a trajectory
> > book) was all that was required.
> 
> Sorry, but your latter comment is incorrect - there were sophisticated 
> analog computers designed for the Iowa class battleships which were used 
> for fire control.

Yes, they did have gun laying computers.  The point that I was making
was that those computers are certainly required when the battleship is
in rough seas at full speed firing at enemy battleships also at full
speed.  This is what these ships were designed to do.

When the ship is basically stationary firing at fixed land based
targets the amount of calculations required is somewhat less. 
Upgraded computers would not be high on the refitting list for the
recommisionings in the 50s and 60s, and especially for the 1980s when
cruise missiles were fitted for high precision attacks.
0
riplin (4127)
12/9/2003 4:25:34 AM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com> wrote

> The 16" guns were never labeled "smart" since that was a term
> that was recently coined, none the less they were "smart" weapons of WWII
> since they were computer based weapons.

I think that you are rather too impressed by the idea they were
'computer based'.  Being entirely mechanical the analog computers
could only give out numbers, or more likely scale readings, which were
then told to the gunners who set the guns.

The really smart stuff was the radar directed AA guns which
automatically traversed and elevated the guns, set the fuse delay, and
fired.  Or the radar directed guns on Bismark.

> > Even ENIAC would have been too slow to keep up with the firing rate.
> >
> > What gun laying computers do is _use_ the tables produced by long and
> > detailed calculations to quickly provide the required settings.  These
> > may not necessarily be actual paper books but will be encoded into the
> > workings of the computer.  That is the computer is manufactured
> > specifically for those particular guns based on the tables calculated
> > for them.
> 
> Again you show total ignorance of the 16" guns.  The 16" guns on the battle
> ships were not tested on land, they were built into the ships and tested
> there.  

Where was there any suggestion by anyone that it was otherwise ?

> They did not use digital calculations 

Excuse me but where did 'digital calculations' come from ?  ENIAC was
the first digital used for artillery calculations and that was not
until well after tyhe battleships were commisioned.

> the analog computers were
> calibrated to the guns on board ship using live fire exercises.

The analog computers on borad were made to suit the exact
characteristics of the particular gun.  Analog computer are not
'general purpose' devices as current computers are, they were designed
and built for the specific task.

You indicate that you think they built the guns then tried them to see
what they would do.  Not so.  Guns are designed to work in a
particular way.  The characteristics would be well known before they
are made.  The analog computers were made to work for those particular
characteristics and no other, based on the calculations done using
weeks or months of calculations of the trajectories.

Have you even seen a mechanical analog computer ?
0
riplin (4127)
12/9/2003 7:57:23 AM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com> wrote

> Again you show total ignorance and still refuse to have someone read to you
> and explain the yellowbook.  The yellowbook defines the structures that can
> be used to create a standard CD-ROM.  In your blissful ignorance you always
> clip CD when the yellow book refers to CD, CD-R, and CD-RW.  All three are
> examples of CD-ROMs as defined in the standard.  I brought up the yellowbook
> so you could get someone to read it to you and you could start to find out
> how a CD-ROM is written to.  

Let us see what documents do say on the subject:

"""Like audio CDs you cannot write to a pre-recorded CD-ROM but only
to recordable versions."""

So, far from finding out "how a _CD-ROM_ is written" we find that it
cannot.

Of course the master for a CD-ROM stamping process must first be
_written_, perhaps to a hard drive, and then to a pattern maker.  In
that sense, and exactly like an author writes a book, the _master_ is
written in the Yellow Book format to read-write media.

Given that ROM specifically means _READ_ONLY_ a CD-RW is never one of
those, except when in a Read Only drive, though it may have the format
of one as defined by the Yellow Book (or even some other).

CD-Rs are 'written' and then may be made Read Only so that they then
do become CD-ROMs.  The mechanism of 'writing' is as I have stated.

You are attempting to make an argument that RAM is ROM if it has the
same bit pattern as a ROM.

You fail to distinguish between the content and the media.

> How a person writes is not important, some
> write left to right, some use pencils, some use smoke the fact that you do
> not understand what writing is, is just humorous.

All of those examples, as were all the previous ones, are exactly done
word at a time sequentially.  Why is that you keep feeding me examples
that support my argument.

Now if you were to find a reference that had, say, a printing press
'write' something, then you may start making a point to support _your_
argument.  But books are 'written' word at a time by authors and are
'printed' page at a time by presses.  The two words are not
synonomous, nor interchangable.
0
riplin (4127)
12/9/2003 8:32:55 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312090032.4208b8c5@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > Again you show total ignorance and still refuse to have someone read to
you
> > and explain the yellowbook.  The yellowbook defines the structures that
can
> > be used to create a standard CD-ROM.  In your blissful ignorance you
always
> > clip CD when the yellow book refers to CD, CD-R, and CD-RW.  All three
are
> > examples of CD-ROMs as defined in the standard.  I brought up the
yellowbook
> > so you could get someone to read it to you and you could start to find
out
> > how a CD-ROM is written to.
>
> Let us see what documents do say on the subject:
>
> """Like audio CDs you cannot write to a pre-recorded CD-ROM but only
> to recordable versions."""
>
> So, far from finding out "how a _CD-ROM_ is written" we find that it
> cannot.

If you will just read your own post you quote "you cannot write to a
pre-recorded CD-ROM", absolutely true it is already written to.  On the
other hand if you had the right equipment you can record your own, after you
record your CD and give it to someone else it is then pre-recorded.  Try to
remember that record is another synonym for write.  As I stated earlier you
need to find someone to read the yellowbook to you and try and explain it to
you at the same time.

>
> Of course the master for a CD-ROM stamping process must first be
> _written_, perhaps to a hard drive, and then to a pattern maker.  In
> that sense, and exactly like an author writes a book, the _master_ is
> written in the Yellow Book format to read-write media.
>
> Given that ROM specifically means _READ_ONLY_ a CD-RW is never one of
> those, except when in a Read Only drive, though it may have the format
> of one as defined by the Yellow Book (or even some other).
>
> CD-Rs are 'written' and then may be made Read Only so that they then
> do become CD-ROMs.  The mechanism of 'writing' is as I have stated.
>
> You are attempting to make an argument that RAM is ROM if it has the
> same bit pattern as a ROM.
>
> You fail to distinguish between the content and the media.
>
> > How a person writes is not important, some
> > write left to right, some use pencils, some use smoke the fact that you
do
> > not understand what writing is, is just humorous.
>
> All of those examples, as were all the previous ones, are exactly done
> word at a time sequentially.  Why is that you keep feeding me examples
> that support my argument.
>
> Now if you were to find a reference that had, say, a printing press
> 'write' something, then you may start making a point to support _your_
> argument.  But books are 'written' word at a time by authors and are
> 'printed' page at a time by presses.  The two words are not
> synonomous, nor interchangable.

You obviously have issues with asking someone to read things to you and
explain them, that will keep you from learning.  As the yellowbook clearly
states CDs, CD-Rs, and CD-RWs are all CD-ROMS, just as masked ROMs, PROMs,
EPROMs, EEPROMs, etc. are all semiconductor ROMs.


0
randy482 (428)
12/10/2003 7:20:20 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0312082357.ab67ce3@posting.google.com...
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > The 16" guns were never labeled "smart" since that was a term
> > that was recently coined, none the less they were "smart" weapons of
WWII
> > since they were computer based weapons.
>
> I think that you are rather too impressed by the idea they were
> 'computer based'.  Being entirely mechanical the analog computers
> could only give out numbers, or more likely scale readings, which were
> then told to the gunners who set the guns.
>
> The really smart stuff was the radar directed AA guns which
> automatically traversed and elevated the guns, set the fuse delay, and
> fired.  Or the radar directed guns on Bismark.
>
> > > Even ENIAC would have been too slow to keep up with the firing rate.
> > >
> > > What gun laying computers do is _use_ the tables produced by long and
> > > detailed calculations to quickly provide the required settings.  These
> > > may not necessarily be actual paper books but will be encoded into the
> > > workings of the computer.  That is the computer is manufactured
> > > specifically for those particular guns based on the tables calculated
> > > for them.
> >
> > Again you show total ignorance of the 16" guns.  The 16" guns on the
battle
> > ships were not tested on land, they were built into the ships and tested
> > there.
>
> Where was there any suggestion by anyone that it was otherwise ?
>
> > They did not use digital calculations
>
> Excuse me but where did 'digital calculations' come from ?  ENIAC was
> the first digital used for artillery calculations and that was not
> until well after tyhe battleships were commisioned.

Your quote you decided to clip implied that the calculations for the 16"
Naval guns were calculated  at Aberdeen:

>>> Yes. It _could_ be done with a trajectory book, just like it is with
>>> every other gun.  I see no evidence that they carried the 100 ton
>>> version of the mechanical computers that took many minutes to
>>> calculate a single trajectory as used at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

Aberdeen was used by the Army and the calculations made there were for the
Army's guns test fired there.  Obviosly no one has ever explained to you
that the Army and the Navy handle things a little differently.  Since this
thread has been only on how the Navy used computers your mention of Aberdeen
proves you are just doing internet searches and using phrases you find on
guns.  Just to remind you (since you obviously are not smart enough to
remember on your own) the thread was about a Naval computer.

>
> > the analog computers were
> > calibrated to the guns on board ship using live fire exercises.
>
> The analog computers on borad were made to suit the exact
> characteristics of the particular gun.  Analog computer are not
> 'general purpose' devices as current computers are, they were designed
> and built for the specific task.
>
> You indicate that you think they built the guns then tried them to see
> what they would do.  Not so.  Guns are designed to work in a
> particular way.  The characteristics would be well known before they
> are made.  The analog computers were made to work for those particular
> characteristics and no other, based on the calculations done using
> weeks or months of calculations of the trajectories.
>
> Have you even seen a mechanical analog computer ?

Yes I have seen the specific computers we have been talking about.  And for
your information the Navy uses a lot more trial and error when dealing with
trajectories than calculations.  They start with calculated trajectories
then refine them with trial and error.


0
randy482 (428)
12/10/2003 7:40:02 AM
Randy McLaughlin wrote:
> "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
> >
.... snip ...
> >
> > Now if you were to find a reference that had, say, a printing press
> > 'write' something, then you may start making a point to support _your_
> > argument.  But books are 'written' word at a time by authors and are
> > 'printed' page at a time by presses.  The two words are not
> > synonomous, nor interchangable.
> 
> You obviously have issues with asking someone to read things to you and
> explain them, that will keep you from learning.  As the yellowbook clearly
> states CDs, CD-Rs, and CD-RWs are all CD-ROMS, just as masked ROMs, PROMs,
> EPROMs, EEPROMs, etc. are all semiconductor ROMs.

Kindly move this flamefest to private e-mail.  Richard seems to
have published a valid address, so you can initiate the contact. 
"We are not amused".

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!


0
cbfalconer (19194)
12/10/2003 5:42:02 PM
"Randy McLaughlin" <randy482@nospam.com> wrote

> Your quote you decided to clip implied that the calculations for the 16"
> Naval guns were calculated  at Aberdeen:

I am sure that if you read carefully enough you would see wxactly what
was implied. Aberdeen had the types of computers that you indicated
were on board.

> Aberdeen was used by the Army and the calculations made there were for the
> Army's guns test fired there.  

There is no requirement for the gun to be at any particular geographic
location for the calculations to be made.  I am sure that many were
located there, but please do show how you _know_ that every single
calculation was for a gun that was close by.

And, indeed, you may even like to attempt to show that all
calculations were for guns that existed at all at the time of
calculation.  Like most equipment there is a design process _before_
construction, and this requires calculations.

> Obviosly no one has ever explained to you
> that the Army and the Navy handle things a little differently.  

Have you not heard of the US "Armed Forces Ordnance Administration", a
body that coordinated research in this area ?

> Since this thread has been only on how the Navy used computers 

No. Wrong.  Actually I have also mention AA guns as used by the
British Army, and of course the Bush computers and ENIAC which were
used for both Army and Naval guns.

> your mention of Aberdeen
> proves you are just doing internet searches and using phrases you find on
> guns.  

No, it proves that I know where ENIAC was first installed.  You may
also note that my reference to computers "as used by ..".  Do try to
read more carefully if you want to nit pick.

But then you only decided to change the argument (once again) because
you couldn't counter the point that the computers of a type 'as used
at' Aberdeen took orders of magnitude too long to support your view
about what was calculated on board the ships.
 
> Yes I have seen the specific computers we have been talking about.  And for
> your information the Navy uses a lot more trial and error when dealing with
> trajectories than calculations.  They start with calculated trajectories
> then refine them with trial and error.

Well, of course, that is why they fire 'ranging' shots.  That is why
they only get 'pin point accuracy' on the third or fourth shots. They
is why they are not particularly 'smart'.
0
riplin (4127)
12/10/2003 6:20:52 PM
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, CBFalconer wrote:

> Randy McLaughlin wrote:
> > "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
> > >
> ... snip ...
> > >
> > > Now if you were to find a reference that had, say, a printing press
> > > 'write' something, then you may start making a point to support _your_
> > > argument.  But books are 'written' word at a time by authors and are
> > > 'printed' page at a time by presses.  The two words are not
> > > synonomous, nor interchangable.
> > 
> > You obviously have issues with asking someone to read things to you and
> > explain them, that will keep you from learning.  As the yellowbook clearly
> > states CDs, CD-Rs, and CD-RWs are all CD-ROMS, just as masked ROMs, PROMs,
> > EPROMs, EEPROMs, etc. are all semiconductor ROMs.
> 
> Kindly move this flamefest to private e-mail.  Richard seems to
> have published a valid address, so you can initiate the contact. 
> "We are not amused".

Yes, I agree, since the one is doing little more than insulting the 
other's intelligence.  I will say no more than that.

-uso.

0
12/10/2003 7:58:03 PM
G. Nicholas George wrote:
> Funny you should ask!
> 
> This is actually a week 1 discussion question in one of the classes I teach.
> 
> Operating systems, and the functions they provide, have evolved. Early
> operating systems had far less functionality than today's systems, just as
> modern computers can do more than our favorite old classics.
> 
> I have striven to find a universal definition of what an operating system
> is, and here is what I have come up with:
> 
> "An operating system is a program whose function is to run other programs".
> 
By this definition, would the BASIC interpreter found in ROM on many 
classic systems be considered an O/S?  It's purpose is to run other 
programs.

--T

0
tyger69 (81)
1/3/2004 12:40:39 AM
>> I recently found the manual for the Heathkit Microprocessor Trainer
>> ET-3400. The schematic showed just how few chips are needed for a
>> hex keyboard and 7-segment display front panel.

Bill Leary wrote:
> The H8 not only scanned the keyboard under software, but also
> updated the 7Seg LEDs.

Minor point; the H8 used neon 'plasma' displays, not LEDs.

>> Oddly, the most primitive system I used had little in the way of a
>> "front panel". The LGP-21 used individual transistors in the can,
>> and a fixed head disk. I think it had a total of 8 switches and
>> maybe 4 sense switches. That's economical!

Pretty good! But the simplest computer with a true front panel that I
know of was the Popular Electronics "ELF" (a clone of the RCA
Microtutor) using the 1802 micro.
-- 
Lee A. Hart                Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave. N.            Forget your perfect offering
Sartell, MN 56377 USA      There is a crack in everything
leeahart_at_earthlink.net  That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen

0
leeahart (232)
1/3/2004 10:11:59 PM
"Lee Hart" <leeahart@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FF755B0.42C@earthlink.net...
> >> I recently found the manual for the Heathkit Microprocessor Trainer
> >> ET-3400. The schematic showed just how few chips are needed for a
> >> hex keyboard and 7-segment display front panel.
>
> Bill Leary wrote:
> > The H8 not only scanned the keyboard under software, but also
> > updated the 7Seg LEDs.
>
> Minor point; the H8 used neon 'plasma' displays, not LEDs.

Hmmm.

The one I had open I _thought_ had LEDs (I mean besides the four status
ones) but that was far too many years ago for me to be sure I'm right, and I
wasn't actually working on the front panel anyway.

As may be, here are a few bits on the H8 front panel.

http://www.cedmagic.com/history/heathkit-h8.html
http://home.comcast.net/~davidwallace2000/h8/Evolution.htm
http://www.ps8computing.co.uk/CPM/heathkit.htm

Most of these either say LEDs or "MAN-1" displays.  If I'm recalling
correctly, the MAN-1 *was* some kind of neon gadget.

That last especially intersting as it explains HOW the display worked (how
the firmware and hardware all tied together to give a pretty good emulation
of a front panel, along with a few bits an FP generally didn't provide).

> Pretty good! But the simplest computer with a true front panel that I
> know of was the Popular Electronics "ELF" (a clone of the RCA
> Microtutor) using the 1802 micro.

I build a variant of this machine.  The HEX display modules they spec'd in
the magazine were cool as all get out, but I was on a very tight budget, and
was using NOVA 1200's and 3's on my day job so using eight distinct LEDs
with 7404's as buffers (all of them zero bucks from the junk bin at work)
was the way I ended up going.

    - Bill


0
Bill_Leary (360)
1/4/2004 1:36:59 AM
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 22:11:59 GMT, Lee Hart <leeahart@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Bill Leary wrote:
>> The H8 not only scanned the keyboard under software, but also
>> updated the 7Seg LEDs.
>
>Minor point; the H8 used neon 'plasma' displays, not LEDs.

No the were leds.  Man-1s or the equivelent.  I have a parted out
pannel and a bin full of the 7segment leds used.  Very few computers
used plasma displays due to cost, high voltages (170V typical) and
the need for special high voltage drivers.  

>>> Oddly, the most primitive system I used had little in the way of a
>>> "front panel". The LGP-21 used individual transistors in the can,
>>> and a fixed head disk. I think it had a total of 8 switches and
>>> maybe 4 sense switches. That's economical!

More interested in that.

Allison

0
nospam74 (614)
1/4/2004 3:31:59 AM
The H-8 used LEDs, not plasma displays.  Those displays are "modules" of 
seven LEDs per module.


Lee Hart wrote:
>>>I recently found the manual for the Heathkit Microprocessor Trainer
>>>ET-3400. The schematic showed just how few chips are needed for a
>>>hex keyboard and 7-segment display front panel.
> 
> 
> Bill Leary wrote:
> 
>>The H8 not only scanned the keyboard under software, but also
>>updated the 7Seg LEDs.
> 
> 
> Minor point; the H8 used neon 'plasma' displays, not LEDs.
> 
> 
>>>Oddly, the most primitive system I used had little in the way of a
>>>"front panel". The LGP-21 used individual transistors in the can,
>>>and a fixed head disk. I think it had a total of 8 switches and
>>>maybe 4 sense switches. That's economical!
> 
> 
> Pretty good! But the simplest computer with a true front panel that I
> know of was the Popular Electronics "ELF" (a clone of the RCA
> Microtutor) using the 1802 micro.

0
WatzmanNOSPAM (5711)
1/4/2004 5:07:59 PM
Barry Watzman wrote:
> The H-8 used LEDs, not plasma displays. Those displays are "modules"
> of seven LEDs per module.

By golly, you're right! I could have sworn they were plasma, but I
pulled out my old schematics and they are indeed LEDs. Thanks for the
correction, Barry. My 'forgetory' is taking over my 'memory' :-)
-- 
Lee A. Hart                Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave. N.            Forget your perfect offering
Sartell, MN 56377 USA      There is a crack in everything
leeahart_at_earthlink.net  That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen

0
leeahart (232)
1/5/2004 12:31:08 AM
"Terry Yager" wrote in message...

> > "An operating system is a program whose function is to run other
programs".

> By this definition, would the BASIC interpreter found in ROM on many
> classic systems be considered an O/S?  It's purpose is to run other
> programs.

I can't speak for the other machines, however the Amstrad CPC computers
has it's
own OS which is accessible via BASIC, which is called AMSDOS. To get
into the nitty-gritty side of things it's possible to use this OS in
BASIC programs & in some cases programs were written with additional
commands which were support by the Disc Based CPC's, but wouldn't work
on a 464 (unless you had a External Disc Drive for it! :-)

Regards,
Ross.


0
1/7/2004 9:03:37 PM
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:03:37 +1100, "Ross Simpson"
<Hi_Mr_Spammer@nowhere.com.au> wrote:

>"Terry Yager" wrote in message...
>
>> > "An operating system is a program whose function is to run other
>programs".
>
>> By this definition, would the BASIC interpreter found in ROM on many
>> classic systems be considered an O/S?  It's purpose is to run other
>> programs.
>
>I can't speak for the other machines, however the Amstrad CPC computers
>has it's
>own OS which is accessible via BASIC, which is called AMSDOS.

With due deference to Ross, that's sort of begs the question. Because
what you're saying is there's an operating system under (behind?) the
Basic interpreter.

And while CP/M pretty much did things that way, it didn't have to;
the IBM PC in fact COULD run Basic as the only operating system.

Or, like CP/M, it could use the built-in operating system (I like the
definition that involves the OS functioning as a file handler)(and,
that might mean something you CALL a file that might actually BE
a device) to load up a file (called Mbasic.com, or GWBasic.exe,
whatever) just like any other application. Well, applications that
themselves could load and run other applications.

We called the base layer ''operating system'' in early machines
a ''monitor'' or some such, and (usually) stuck that into ROM chips.

There were some who put CP/M itself into ROM, just as some put
DOS (version 5 in my HP 100/200 PDA's) into ROM. But then trying
to maintain a probably artificial division of duties amongst the
various bits of code by calling some things' 'boot loader'' and
others ''operating system'' when they're really the same thing but
for where the code is located (maybe the code in ROM instead of
on magnetic media or paper tape; or even cassette tape). 

Operating system = 'file' handler. Who knows what the 'files' might
do or where the code to do it is located. 


Bill

0
Bill3039 (326)
1/16/2004 8:20:52 PM
"wild bill" <bill@sunsouthwest.com> wrote in message
news:bd0264b4f942f34437d262e00080e8d7@news.teranews.com...
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:03:37 +1100, "Ross Simpson"
> <Hi_Mr_Spammer@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>
> >"Terry Yager" wrote in message...
> >
> >> > "An operating system is a program whose function is to run other
> >programs".
> >
> >> By this definition, would the BASIC interpreter found in ROM on many
> >> classic systems be considered an O/S?  It's purpose is to run other
> >> programs.
> >
> >I can't speak for the other machines, however the Amstrad CPC computers
> >has it's
> >own OS which is accessible via BASIC, which is called AMSDOS.
>
> With due deference to Ross, that's sort of begs the question. Because
> what you're saying is there's an operating system under (behind?) the
> Basic interpreter.
>
> And while CP/M pretty much did things that way, it didn't have to;
> the IBM PC in fact COULD run Basic as the only operating system.
>
> Or, like CP/M, it could use the built-in operating system (I like the
> definition that involves the OS functioning as a file handler)(and,
> that might mean something you CALL a file that might actually BE
> a device) to load up a file (called Mbasic.com, or GWBasic.exe,
> whatever) just like any other application. Well, applications that
> themselves could load and run other applications.
>
> We called the base layer ''operating system'' in early machines
> a ''monitor'' or some such, and (usually) stuck that into ROM chips.
>
> There were some who put CP/M itself into ROM, just as some put
> DOS (version 5 in my HP 100/200 PDA's) into ROM. But then trying
> to maintain a probably artificial division of duties amongst the
> various bits of code by calling some things' 'boot loader'' and
> others ''operating system'' when they're really the same thing but
> for where the code is located (maybe the code in ROM instead of
> on magnetic media or paper tape; or even cassette tape).
>
> Operating system = 'file' handler. Who knows what the 'files' might
> do or where the code to do it is located.
>
>
> Bill


Some monitors were simple and did not reach the level of being an "OS".

If all the monitor did was give the user a software version of a front panel
(ie no special ability to select programs to execute, etc) then the monitor
is not an OS.  One example of a monitor I do not consider is Cromemco's Z80
monitor.  It was an 8 bit monitor that allowed turn-key systems work on a
fairly rudimentary level

If on the other hand the monitor has the ability to either load programs or
at least select loadable programs (possibly being able to have routines that
the monitor services like IO) then it probably is an OS..  Around the same
time as Cromemco's Z80 monitor Processor Tech had two  ROM based OS's:
SOLOS/CUTTER and ALS8.  Both SOLOS/CUTTER and ALS8 were file based OS's with
multiple routines available for user interaction.  ALS8 was both an OS and a
computer language (assemblet/editor).

I have worked with OS's where the programs are in ROMs.  The OS scaned the
ROMs and built a list of available programs to select from by number (not
too dissimilar from modern systems scanning a CD etc and displaying icons
that can be clicked on.


0
randy482 (428)
1/17/2004 9:04:58 AM
> That depends entirely on what is meant by the term 'Operating System'.
> It seems that most people have only a vauge idea that it is 'a large
> complicated lump of bits that get loaded into the machine at startup'.
>
> An 'Operating System' is (or at least was when the term was coined),
> does things that the operator would otherwise have to do themselves.
> Such as keeping track of which tapes (TOS) and areas of disk (DOS)
> were used for what and when they were last used. Such as determining
> which program is to run next and which resources need to be available.

I'm afraid there's no clear definition of Operating System vs Monitor,
particularly in the 70s.

I used the IBM 1130's Disk Monitor
    http://www.ibm1130.net/DM2/
that was very comparable to CPM:
- managed files on hard disks using a simple file system
- loaded programs
- regained control after the program ended without rebooting
- included utilities for managing the system (list files, delete files, etc)

I'm unsure if having a scheduler differentiates things at all.
I worked on embedded systems with a simple task-table
with context-switch based on timer
(if the task didn't relinquish control first).
We called that the monitor, not an OS.

> Windows provided a complete OS where the program loaded other programs,
> DLLs, etc through windows (either system calls or operator intervention).

The IBM 1130's Disk Monitor had rudimentary but similar ability to
chain programs, manage overlays (simple memory management and dynamic linking).

> > Some monitors were simple and did not reach the level of being an "OS".

And some OSs abused the term!
Long ago, there were differentiations for monitor,
Tape OS, Disk OS, and a full OS.
IBM's terms were probably not shared by others since they were
biased towards their mainframe monolithic systems.

> If all the monitor did was give the user a software version of a front panel
> (ie no special ability to select programs to execute, etc) then the monitor
> is not an OS.  One example of a monitor I do not consider is Cromemco's Z80
> monitor.  It was an 8 bit monitor that allowed turn-key systems work on a
> fairly rudimentary level

The Zilog System 8000s were fun to use because they had a minimal front panel
and a "debug monitor" in ROM that was invoked via a front panel switch.
That let me always regain control of an otherwise hung system.
I guess I'm trying to agree with you: that was a MONITOR.

> I have worked with OS's where the programs are in ROMs.  The OS scaned the
> ROMs and built a list of available programs to select from by number (not
> too dissimilar from modern systems scanning a CD etc and displaying icons
> that can be clicked on.

Xinu was similar: an OS for teaching.
It was one executable file.
Perhaps it grew to handle disks, but originally it was just one executable
with no program loader, just memory management.
0
jeffj (156)
1/18/2004 10:01:46 PM
Reply: