This is something i threw together in a couple of minutes....

---------
Top 10 reasons Commodore computer users are better in bed.

1. IBM-PC users may have a bigger hard drive, but we can do more with less.
2. We boot up in 2 seconds but take our time while loading.
3. We don't just copy other people's programs, we can write our own
routines.
4. Even our old equipment is on display in museums.
5. We know how to actually use our equipment.
6. We take our time loading before we decide to run.
7. Even our old systems can do what our younger counterparts are doing.
8. Our modem transfers are not bi-directional.
9. We can add RAM without disassembling the computer.
10. Our computers can't tell you what it loaded last night.
---------

"Stratos" <stratos59@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GJGdnWebrNMDGvLdRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> This is something i threw together in a couple of minutes....
>
> ---------
> Top 10 reasons Commodore computer users are better in bed.
>
> 1. IBM-PC users may have a bigger hard drive, but we can do more with
less.
> 2. We boot up in 2 seconds but take our time while loading.
> 3. We don't just copy other people's programs, we can write our own
> routines.
> 4. Even our old equipment is on display in museums.
> 5. We know how to actually use our equipment.
> 6. We take our time loading before we decide to run.
> 7. Even our old systems can do what our younger counterparts are doing.
> 8. Our modem transfers are not bi-directional.
> 9. We can add RAM without disassembling the computer.
> 10. Our computers can't tell you what it loaded last night.
> ---------
>
>
>
>

A few more i've thought up...

  We don't need help files to tell us what to do next.
  We never need menus to tell us how to proceed.
  We can produce more software with less input.

What do ya say, lets keep it going?

Add this to your list....

A Commodore 64 will not CRASH any where near as much as a WINDOZE system 
IF at all.

Mike.....

Stratos wrote:
> "Stratos" <stratos59@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:GJGdnWebrNMDGvLdRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> 
>>This is something i threw together in a couple of minutes....
>>
>>---------
>>Top 10 reasons Commodore computer users are better in bed.
>>
>>1. IBM-PC users may have a bigger hard drive, but we can do more with
> 
> less.
> 
>>2. We boot up in 2 seconds but take our time while loading.
>>3. We don't just copy other people's programs, we can write our own
>>routines.
>>4. Even our old equipment is on display in museums.
>>5. We know how to actually use our equipment.
>>6. We take our time loading before we decide to run.
>>7. Even our old systems can do what our younger counterparts are doing.
>>8. Our modem transfers are not bi-directional.
>>9. We can add RAM without disassembling the computer.
>>10. Our computers can't tell you what it loaded last night.
>>---------
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> A few more i've thought up...
> 
>   We don't need help files to tell us what to do next.
>   We never need menus to tell us how to proceed.
>   We can produce more software with less input.
> 
> What do ya say, lets keep it going?
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
http://uk.geocities.com/swift240/mikes_page_1.html

"Mike Lee" <swift240@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:K3Sbc.19463$Id.14350@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Add this to your list....
>
> A Commodore 64 will not CRASH any where near as much as a WINDOZE system
> IF at all.
>

A laughable comment considering that you can't do anywhere near as much on a
C64 and I haven't had XP crash in the nine months that I have been using it
anyway.

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:407040c7$0$56485$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "Mike Lee" <swift240@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:K3Sbc.19463$Id.14350@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Add this to your list....
> >
> > A Commodore 64 will not CRASH any where near as much as a WINDOZE system
> > IF at all.
> >
>
> A laughable comment considering that you can't do anywhere near as much on
a
> C64 and I haven't had XP crash in the nine months that I have been using
it
> anyway.
>
>
How about when we're done a program we can reboot instantly to start again.

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote ...
>
> "Mike Lee" <swift240@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:K3Sbc.19463$Id.14350@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Add this to your list....
> >
> > A Commodore 64 will not CRASH any where near as much as a WINDOZE system
> > IF at all.
> >
>
> A laughable comment considering that you can't do anywhere near as much on
> a C64 and I haven't had XP crash in the nine months that I have been using
> it anyway.

I have had poorly written software crash in XP, but a software crash does not
bring the system down with the software, like it frequently did in Win 95.

And to be fair about it, I have had software crash the C64 to a point where
the power switch had to be cycled to fully recover.

The operating system that is 100% error proof has yet to be invented.  And,
when someone does make an error proof OS, someone else will make a new error
to crash it!    ;-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

If you make it idiot-proof,
someone will make a better idiot!

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, Stratos wrote:
|> > A Commodore 64 will not CRASH any where near as much as a WINDOZE
|> > system IF at all.
|> >
|>
|> A laughable comment considering that you can't do anywhere near as
|> much on a C64 and I haven't had XP crash in the nine months that I
|> have been using it anyway.
|
|How about when we're done a program we can reboot instantly to start
|gain.

You already won the argument when you mentioned crashing.

It's just that Windows users don't realize that when their computer
stops responding to a mouse or keyboard, that means that it has
'crashed.'  It is an irrecoverable crash if the CTRL ALT DEL
combination fails to bring the machine back to a continuable state.
And yet the run-of-the-mill Windows user think that 'crash' must mean
there is smoke and sparks, like on a television show.  Pathetic, that's
what it is.

My C128 hasn't crashed in 10 years. Give that for a feat. My C64 would not
crash even in 20 years given the same cooling and ventilation.

PSU is another issue but given a good PSU can last 20 years and not crash.
Ok, only if the power company can keep from blacking out.

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:407040c7$0$56485$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...

> A laughable comment considering that you can't do anywhere near as much on
a
> C64 and I haven't had XP crash in the nine months that I have been using
it
> anyway.
>
>

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...

> It's just that Windows users don't realize that when their computer
> stops responding to a mouse or keyboard, that means that it has
> 'crashed.'  It is an irrecoverable crash if the CTRL ALT DEL
> combination fails to bring the machine back to a continuable state.
> And yet the run-of-the-mill Windows user think that 'crash' must mean
> there is smoke and sparks, like on a television show.  Pathetic, that's
> what it is.

I can think of something even more pathetic...  Matthews skewed opinion of
Windows users.  Downright pitiful is he.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

It looks like your gene
pool could use a filter!

"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote ...

> My C128 hasn't crashed in 10 years. Give that for a feat. My C64 would not
> crash even in 20 years given the same cooling and ventilation.

You must not have used the same software mix that I did.  I have had plenty
of crashes on my C128.  Software that does not reset all of the vectors that
it changed when you exit that software can easily leave a timebomb waiting to
be triggered by another program run later on.

As I stated in another message, there is no such thing as an operating system
that _never_ crashes.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

If you make it idiot-proof,
someone will make a better idiot!

"Stratos" <stratos59@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2P-dndLUWMDa9e3d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:407040c7$0$56485$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> >
> > "Mike Lee" <swift240@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:K3Sbc.19463$Id.14350@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > Add this to your list....
> > >
> > > A Commodore 64 will not CRASH any where near as much as a WINDOZE
system
> > > IF at all.
> > >
> >
> > A laughable comment considering that you can't do anywhere near as much
on
> a
> > C64 and I haven't had XP crash in the nine months that I have been using
> it
> > anyway.
> >
> >
> How about when we're done a program we can reboot instantly to start
again.
>

Multitasking many programs at once is much more useful and efficient.

"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in
message news:10712ojacljv1d@corp.supernews.com...
> My C128 hasn't crashed in 10 years. Give that for a feat. My C64 would not
> crash even in 20 years given the same cooling and ventilation.

It would take that long to encode a single MP3 (in theory), so just as well
then.

Mike Lee wrote:

> Add this to your list....
> 
> A Commodore 64 will not CRASH any where near as much as a WINDOZE system 
> IF at all.
> 

True. C64 does not "CRASH". It "HANGS" pretty easily though. Good start 
is to feed the CPU with some (AFAIR) $x2 bytes as instructions.

Sam Gillett wrote:

>>It's just that Windows users don't realize that when their computer
>>stops responding to a mouse or keyboard, that means that it has
>>'crashed.'  It is an irrecoverable crash if the CTRL ALT DEL
>>combination fails to bring the machine back to a continuable state.
>>And yet the run-of-the-mill Windows user think that 'crash' must mean
>>there is smoke and sparks, like on a television show.  Pathetic, that's
>>what it is.
> 
> 
> I can think of something even more pathetic...  Matthews skewed opinion of
> Windows users.  Downright pitiful is he.

The "generic", "statistical" Losedows user is just like that ;-)

Sam Gillett wrote:
|"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...
|
|> It's just that Windows users don't realize that when their computer
|> stops responding to a mouse or keyboard, that means that it has
|> 'crashed.'  It is an irrecoverable crash if the CTRL ALT DEL
|> combination fails to bring the machine back to a continuable state.
|> And yet the run-of-the-mill Windows user think that 'crash' must mean
|> there is smoke and sparks, like on a television show.  Pathetic, that's
|> what it is.
|
|I can think of something even more pathetic...  Matthews skewed opinion of
|Windows users.  Downright pitiful is he.

Strange you would have to resort to a direct ad hominem for an "oh,
yeah?" sort of retort.

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
|> How about when we're done a program we can reboot instantly to start
|> again.
|
|Multitasking many programs at once is much more useful and efficient.

And you think that Windows can multitask after it has crashed?  That
sounds more like an argument for just about anything but Windows.
When my Compaq crashes, the background tasks are inaccessible and
unaddressable.  You can't get to them, because the keyboard is
frozen and the mouse is dead.  If there are any tasks in the background
churning away, you can only pray that they notice there is something
seriously wrong with the keyboard or the mouse, because otherwise
the machine is still as dead as a doornail.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404050431500.10052-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
> |> How about when we're done a program we can reboot instantly to start
> |> again.
> |
> |Multitasking many programs at once is much more useful and efficient.
>
> And you think that Windows can multitask after it has crashed?

XP on my machine hasn't crashed in 9 months.

That
> sounds more like an argument for just about anything but Windows.
> When my Compaq crashes, the background tasks are inaccessible and
> unaddressable.  You can't get to them, because the keyboard is
> frozen and the mouse is dead.  If there are any tasks in the background
> churning away, you can only pray that they notice there is something
> seriously wrong with the keyboard or the mouse, because otherwise
> the machine is still as dead as a doornail.

Your Compaq is broken, my PC isn't and until you realize that a broken PC
(or any other broken computer including C64) will exhibit abnormal behaviour
you will only look foolish rehashing your same old arguements.

First off, a 133 MHz PC can decode an MP3 in matter of minutes. If it takes
10 minutes to decode @ 133 MHz then it will take 1330-1335 minutes at 1 MHz
@ 32 bits (Pentium is 32 bits). (22.25 Hours). Now it may take 4-7 days to
decode but do the same on your PCjr. Certainly progression is necassary but
given a SuperCPU (based on a 1982 CPU - ok 20 MHz came out in early 90s).
Ok - 8.4 hours maybe less than that. Take the C-One and we will have a
different issue. Now, the decoder code is written for the x86 but we don't
take into any account code rewriting and optimization either. The question
you may also need to ask yourself - does the speed of the decoding also
dependent on the speed of the disk drive (Hard Drive) and how much of the
time is actually decoding internally and how much time is actually the Hard
Drive. If we actually have an actual total CPU decoding time of the data
being 30 seconds then on a C64 - it would be maybe 5-9.5 hours and not days.
At 20 MHz, then it would be under 1 Hour.  But actual decoding time and 16
bit operation may it be - 13.3 minutes and totally 22.8 minutes.

Given that, it is only going to take twice as long with a C-One in "real
world time". Given that internal processing would only be part of the actual
decoding time. You must count the other variables too. This is why certain
tasks haven't really got done quicker in real world all that much between
133 MHz and 2 GHz. Performance of task and workforce and if the worker
actually moves any faster. Do you type 10 times faster than you did in 1995
???? You will simply have to ask - do we need to do .mp3 if we can compress
in more efficient ways ????

We encode/decode if we can simply compress them and decompress them like
..zip files. Then we have other options too. The bottom line is - do we have
to do the same things. Does a Commodore user use a commodore in the same way
they use a PC precisely. Even if the task is word processing - do we have to
do it the same as Windows does it. This comes forth to creative thinking so
enjoy the fact that we have choice and can choose to write software
differently.

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:407132a8$0$56476$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...

> It would take that long to encode a single MP3 (in theory), so just as
well
> then.

Clockmeister wrote:
|> That sounds more like an argument for just about anything but Windows.
|> When my Compaq crashes, the background tasks are inaccessible and
|> unaddressable.  You can't get to them, because the keyboard is
|> frozen and the mouse is dead.  If there are any tasks in the background
|> churning away, you can only pray that they notice there is something
|> seriously wrong with the keyboard or the mouse, because otherwise
|> the machine is still as dead as a doornail.
|
|Your Compaq is broken, my PC isn't and until you realize that a broken PC
|(or any other broken computer including C64) will exhibit abnormal behaviour
|you will only look foolish rehashing your same old arguements.

My brother's PC exhibits the same problems, and his isn't even a Compaq.
It's some kind of $1,000 laptop, and he was using a CDROM driver trying
to get it to play ordinary music CDs, and it stopped working.  The only
thing we could do was exit out of a whole series of dead 'windows' until
all the windows were turned off, and lo and behold, an illegal frequency
had been read from the CDROM (we were trying to make the CDROM play a
song from my Chambers Brothers CD) and crashed the whole computer.  Maybe
music from the 1960s tends to crash Windows?

CTRL ALT DEL wouldn't work, nothing would work, we had to turn off the
darn thing.  After powering up, the same thing happened over and over
again, all through the night.

Don't tell me - the Chambers Brothers music CD can be played on any
ordinary CD player, but not with Windows?  Somebody forgot to program
in "illegal frequency" tolerance?

|The only thing we could do was exit out of a whole series of dead
|'windows' until all the windows were turned off, and lo and behold,
|an illegal frequency had been read from the CDROM (we were trying
|to make the CDROM play a song from my Chambers Brothers CD) and
|crashed the whole computer.  Maybe music from the 1960s tends to crash
|Windows?
|
|CTRL ALT DEL wouldn't work, nothing would work, we had to turn off the
|darn thing.  After powering up, the same thing happened over and over
|again, all through the night.
|
|Don't tell me - the Chambers Brothers music CD can be played on any
|ordinary CD player, but not with Windows?  Somebody forgot to program
|in "illegal frequency" tolerance?

Then again, the Chambers Brothers had a reputation for driving their
van really fast.  When it comes to stereotypical "fast driving" rock
and roll bands, maybe "illegal frequencies" are to be expected?

Clockmeister wrote:
|> CTRL ALT DEL wouldn't work, nothing would work, we had to turn off the
|> darn thing.  After powering up, the same thing happened over and over
|> again, all through the night.
|>
|> Don't tell me - the Chambers Brothers music CD can be played on any
|> ordinary CD player, but not with Windows?  Somebody forgot to program
|> in "illegal frequency" tolerance?
|
|That sounds like a complete load of crap. Illegal frequency bah.

The same thing applies to fanatical Windows apologists who say their
system never crashes.

|Sorry, but you don't need to make your CD-ROM play a music CD, just
|insert it and it starts playing, no user interaction required.

Then why did it keep crashing?

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404051519270.13301-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> Clockmeister wrote:
> |> That sounds more like an argument for just about anything but Windows.
> |> When my Compaq crashes, the background tasks are inaccessible and
> |> unaddressable.  You can't get to them, because the keyboard is
> |> frozen and the mouse is dead.  If there are any tasks in the background
> |> churning away, you can only pray that they notice there is something
> |> seriously wrong with the keyboard or the mouse, because otherwise
> |> the machine is still as dead as a doornail.
> |
> |Your Compaq is broken, my PC isn't and until you realize that a broken PC
> |(or any other broken computer including C64) will exhibit abnormal
behaviour
> |you will only look foolish rehashing your same old arguements.
>
> My brother's PC exhibits the same problems, and his isn't even a Compaq.
> It's some kind of $1,000 laptop, and he was using a CDROM driver trying
> to get it to play ordinary music CDs, and it stopped working.  The only
> thing we could do was exit out of a whole series of dead 'windows' until
> all the windows were turned off, and lo and behold, an illegal frequency
> had been read from the CDROM (we were trying to make the CDROM play a
> song from my Chambers Brothers CD) and crashed the whole computer.  Maybe
> music from the 1960s tends to crash Windows?
>
> CTRL ALT DEL wouldn't work, nothing would work, we had to turn off the
> darn thing.  After powering up, the same thing happened over and over
> again, all through the night.
>
> Don't tell me - the Chambers Brothers music CD can be played on any
> ordinary CD player, but not with Windows?  Somebody forgot to program
> in "illegal frequency" tolerance?

That sounds like a complete load of crap. Illegal frequency bah.

Sorry, but you don't need to make your CD-ROM play a music CD, just insert
it and it starts playing, no user interaction required.

Don't blame Windows for an obvious user malfunction.

"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in
message news:1073d15p7cmqac7@corp.supernews.com...
> First off, a 133 MHz PC can decode an MP3 in matter of minutes. If it
takes
> 10 minutes to decode @ 133 MHz then it will take 1330-1335 minutes at 1
MHz
> @ 32 bits (Pentium is 32 bits). (22.25 Hours). Now it may take 4-7 days to
> decode but do the same on your PCjr. Certainly progression is necassary
but
> given a SuperCPU (based on a 1982 CPU - ok 20 MHz came out in early 90s).
> Ok - 8.4 hours maybe less than that. Take the C-One and we will have a
> different issue. Now, the decoder code is written for the x86 but we don't
> take into any account code rewriting and optimization either. The question
> you may also need to ask yourself - does the speed of the decoding also
> dependent on the speed of the disk drive (Hard Drive) and how much of the
> time is actually decoding internally and how much time is actually the
Hard
> Drive. If we actually have an actual total CPU decoding time of the data
> being 30 seconds then on a C64 - it would be maybe 5-9.5 hours and not
days.
> At 20 MHz, then it would be under 1 Hour.  But actual decoding time and 16
> bit operation may it be - 13.3 minutes and totally 22.8 minutes.
>
> Given that, it is only going to take twice as long with a C-One in "real
> world time". Given that internal processing would only be part of the
actual
> decoding time. You must count the other variables too. This is why certain
> tasks haven't really got done quicker in real world all that much between
> 133 MHz and 2 GHz. Performance of task and workforce and if the worker
> actually moves any faster. Do you type 10 times faster than you did in
1995
> ???? You will simply have to ask - do we need to do .mp3 if we can
compress
> in more efficient ways ????
>
> We encode/decode if we can simply compress them and decompress them like
> .zip files. Then we have other options too. The bottom line is - do we
have
> to do the same things. Does a Commodore user use a commodore in the same
way
> they use a PC precisely. Even if the task is word processing - do we have
to
> do it the same as Windows does it. This comes forth to creative thinking
so
> enjoy the fact that we have choice and can choose to write software
> differently.
>

I was talking about encoding hundreds of megabytes of wav file to a few
megabytes of mp3's. Encoding, as I pointed out and it certainly would take
years on a 1mhz machine.

Clockmeister wrote:
|"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in
|message news:1073d15p7cmqac7@corp.supernews.com...
|> First off, a 133 MHz PC can decode an MP3 in matter of minutes. If it
|> takes 10 minutes to decode @ 133 MHz then it will take 1330-1335
|> minutes at 1 MHz @ 32 bits (Pentium is 32 bits). (22.25 Hours). Now it
|> may take 4-7 days to decode but do the same on your PCjr. Certainly
|> progression is necassary but given a SuperCPU (based on a 1982 CPU -
|> ok 20 MHz came out in early 90s).

Can you describe the decoding process?

|> Ok - 8.4 hours maybe less than that. Take the C-One and we will have
|> a different issue. Now, the decoder code is written for the x86 but we
|> don't take into any account code rewriting and optimization either.
|> The question you may also need to ask yourself - does the speed of the
|> decoding also dependent on the speed of the disk drive (Hard Drive)
|> and how much of the time is actually decoding internally and how much
|> time is actually the Hard Drive.

Does the entire MP3 file have to be completely in memory in order to
decode it?  Is it similar to extracting a file that has been compressed?

|> If we actually have an actual total CPU decoding time of the data
|> being 30 seconds then on a C64 - it would be maybe 5-9.5 hours and not
|> days. At 20 MHz, then it would be under 1 Hour.  But actual decoding
|> time and 16 bit operation may it be - 13.3 minutes and totally 22.8
|> minutes.

If there were some way of extracting different sections of the MP3 and
assigning them to a whole series of C-64 computers operating on their
own tasks in parallel, as in a distributed operating system, perhaps a
faster method of decoding them can be realized?

If that were the case, it might be highly beneficial to have a PCjr chop
the MP3 into sections and then let each C-64 do its own thing with the
section that is assigned to it?

After all, two C-64s can do far more in tandem than either can do alone,
and if a PCjr were thrown into the mix, maybe their combined processing
power could rival that of a $2,000 pc system chugging away at a task of
that nature.

   <snip>

|I was talking about encoding hundreds of megabytes of wav file to a few
|megabytes of mp3's. Encoding, as I pointed out and it certainly would take
|years on a 1mhz machine.

Yeah, well, if you were only using one 1 mhz machine.  Something tells
me that better performance is available if you used more of those 1 mhz
machines, and if the MP3 were cut up into sections that were more easily
swallowed.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...

> Yeah, well, if you were only using one 1 mhz machine.  Something tells
> me that better performance is available if you used more of those 1 mhz
> machines, and if the MP3 were cut up into sections that were more easily
> swallowed.

Now I understand what you are saying Matthew.  You could equal the processing
power of one modern PC by using an entire room full of C64's.

Why don't we get rid of the C64's too, and resurrect ENIAC?  I wonder how
many years it would take ENIAC to encode enough MP3's to fill a CD?
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

If you make it idiot-proof,
someone will make a better idiot!

Sam Gillett wrote:
|"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...
|
|> Yeah, well, if you were only using one 1 mhz machine.  Something tells
|> me that better performance is available if you used more of those 1 mhz
|> machines, and if the MP3 were cut up into sections that were more easily
|> swallowed.
|
|Now I understand what you are saying Matthew.

Maybe.

|You could equal the processing power of one modern PC by using an entire
|room full of C64's.

An entire room full of C64s would probably be far in excess of a dozen
PCs.

|Why don't we get rid of the C64's too, and resurrect ENIAC?  I wonder how
|many years it would take ENIAC to encode enough MP3's to fill a CD?

Do you really think that you could buy a single ENIAC for $5.00?

Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> |You could equal the processing power of one modern PC by using an entire
> |room full of C64's.
> 
> An entire room full of C64s would probably be far in excess of a dozen
> PCs.

That would depend entirely upon the size of said room.

C64 < 1 MIPS

$ cat /proc/cpuinfo |grep mips
bogomips        : 4128.76

-- 
Jason
(imagining electric bill when running 4,000+ C64s)

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4071e112$0$56490$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> I was talking about encoding hundreds of megabytes of wav file to a few
> megabytes of mp3's. Encoding, as I pointed out and it certainly would take
> years on a 1mhz machine.
>

Ok and why are you turning a C64 into a Windows PC. You are talking multiple
WAV files right ???? Also are you talking loss of quality in sound. It takes
time on a Windows right ???? Anyway, why would you want Commodore or an
AMIGA or a Mac to be Windows. Is this a wannabe Bill Gates thing. Okay, how
long would it take on a PCjr. Ok, not much of any difference - right.

Now, let's see - how long does it take in Windows to do this. BTW: You ain't
cheating by using a hardware chipsets to assist the software. It really
depends on the routine and if you are using a 5.25" drive. Get real, you use
an HD so use an HD on a C=.

The problem will mostly lie in use of slow drives. How long would you think
it be on the C-One ? (Take a look at all the available specs including specs
available at Professor Dredd's site and update that info with any known
changes or updates on the official C-One site - include the JRISC and factor
its speed at around 100 MHz at least for a worst case scenario and remember
it was 32 Bits).

Do an educated guess with all the variables and think if someone does the
task of programming in a reasonable and efficient manner. I would consider
that parts of the bus is operating at the same equivelent operating speed as
the ATA/33 or 66 drives  (Pentium~Pentium MMX) or even ATA100/133.

Given that and other stuff and a well written program that takes advantage
of the hardware just like the Windows program is going to take advantage of
its hardware/instruction set and standardized chipsets and even take
advantage of specific hardware for HW rendering (in any form of multimedia
[video,sound,whatever]) if it applies or can assist.

Not everything is strictly done by the CPU or need to be done strictly by
the CPU. Take advantage of what you can. :-) Take what you know of the C-One
and FPGA and make a good. Also not the I/O speed of the IDE and everything
else is operated more efficiently than the IDE64 for one reason, it is not
be interfaced through a 1 MHz channel. Think about it. The FPGA and system
bus is operating at easily 66 MHz ~ 100 MHz based on given specs. Now that
makes a difference on timing. On the C64, it is just a 1 MHz operation.
IDE64 would be operating a 1 MHz because it has to pipe its data through the
cartridge port which is operating a 1 MHz because of the 6526 CIA chips.
Now, if I remember correction - that is not the case in the C-One native
mode. The FPGA in native mode would be moving data a tid bit faster. So here
is realistic aspects to look into. I don't think the IDE devices will be
piped through a 1 MHz 8 bit channel to the memory (Multimedia ? SD-RAM ?)

Anyway, here is some things that you would want to look into in giving an
educated guess of real world performance of the task. You can take basic
timing from different machines like the 386, 486 and other devices with
equivelent performance chip by chip. The 65c816 is an independent variable.
Just take into consideration of the different aspects and figure potential
datarates and stuff. This is what I would call an educated guess.

Also keep in mind 5400 RPM, 7200 RPM and 10000 RPM HD and data seek timing
and everything else.  Each variable will make a difference.

Ok, it is a bit of math but this is why I say that 20x and 40x performance
increase is not all that matters. When I compare this to a C64. It will make
a difference and inadvertantly it will make a difference in the whole bigger
picture in its comparisons. I think I put some factors that effects actual
time of task to complete - hence "real world" time. What the user sees and
how long they have to wait and add up the figures and given what the task is
will make a difference too. The hardware can be better for different
software. The software then indeed needs to be compatible with the
"harmonics" of the hardware. ( I am speaking metaphorically in the use of
the word "harmonics" - I found that you miss that in the past based on your
responses) So try to follow and connect the dots. I hope you can come back
with a response that shows that you understood. If there is something
unclear, can you politely ask what I mean by something. I would say things
will vary in real world performance based on the software and how it is
written and how well the "software" does its job with the given hardware.
Things will vary.

Good Luck.    :-)

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 04:34:29 -0700, Matthew Montchalin
<mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
>|> How about when we're done a program we can reboot instantly to start
>|> again.
>|
>|Multitasking many programs at once is much more useful and efficient.
>
>And you think that Windows can multitask after it has crashed?  That
>sounds more like an argument for just about anything but Windows.
>When my Compaq crashes, the background tasks are inaccessible and
>unaddressable.  You can't get to them, because the keyboard is
>frozen and the mouse is dead.  If there are any tasks in the background
>churning away, you can only pray that they notice there is something
>seriously wrong with the keyboard or the mouse, because otherwise
>the machine is still as dead as a doornail.

So what?

When my Commodore 64 crashes, it cant even accomplish the *single*
task I had set it to do!  And unlike the my PC, my C-64 doesn-t even
come stock with a reset button, much less on the front panel.

BTW, it was YOU who purchased the Compaq, so don blame anybody else if
it doesn't perform to your expectations, Matthew.  If you'd asked
around a bit, you might have found out that it was pverpriced and
vastly proprietary even within the IBM PC world. 

I build my own IBM clones and don't have to turn them off or reset
them anywhere near as much as I must do so with my c=64.   I have to
reset my c=64 in order to exit many, if not most of my commercial
programmes.  All I need need to do so with my PC is to choose "Close
Application."

Don't get me wrong...  My C-64 (and 128) is useful and fun tool, but
it has its place as there is only so much that I can do with it, even
with the tightest and fanciest machine code.  The same goes for my IBM
PC clone.

The difference is that I am not so *insanely* chauvinistic about 8-bit
stuff that I must put down more modern technology. You are definitely
obsessed.  Have you considered seeing a therapist?

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 00:12:48 +0800, "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>
>"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404050431500.10052-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
>> |> How about when we're done a program we can reboot instantly to start
>> |> again.
>> |
>> |Multitasking many programs at once is much more useful and efficient.
>>
>> And you think that Windows can multitask after it has crashed?
>
>XP on my machine hasn't crashed in 9 months.
>
>That
>> sounds more like an argument for just about anything but Windows.
>> When my Compaq crashes, the background tasks are inaccessible and
>> unaddressable.  You can't get to them, because the keyboard is
>> frozen and the mouse is dead.  If there are any tasks in the background
>> churning away, you can only pray that they notice there is something
>> seriously wrong with the keyboard or the mouse, because otherwise
>> the machine is still as dead as a doornail.
>
>Your Compaq is broken, my PC isn't and until you realize that a broken PC
>(or any other broken computer including C64) will exhibit abnormal behaviour
>you will only look foolish rehashing your same old arguements.

The problem is probably more like that the Compaq's *owner* is also
broken.  <g>

Jason Petersen wrote:
|> |You could equal the processing power of one modern PC by using an entire
|> |room full of C64's.
|>
|> An entire room full of C64s would probably be far in excess of a dozen
|> PCs.
|
|That would depend entirely upon the size of said room.
|
|C64 < 1 MIPS

It would also depend upon the operating system in each machine.

WINDOWS > 1 crash per hour (for a typical PC)

And to be fair, if you are going to link up thirty two C-64s together
and have them decode MP3 files in parallel, we might as well figure in
the time it takes to write such a strange operating system, seeing as
how that kind of a beast simply hasn't been written yet.

Herbert West wrote:
|When my Commodore 64 crashes, it cant even accomplish the *single*
|task I had set it to do!  And unlike the my PC, my C-64 doesn-t even
|come stock with a reset button, much less on the front panel.
|
|BTW, it was YOU who purchased the Compaq,

Ahem, it was given to me, and I am very thankful for it, too.

Perhaps someone will give me a CommodoreOne, and I can give that
a good run-through, too.

|so don blame anybody else if it doesn't perform to your expectations,
|Matthew.  If you'd asked around a bit, you might have found out that
|it was pverpriced and vastly proprietary even within the IBM PC world.

Only recently - a week ago - have I discovered a manual for Windows 95.
God knows why they don't bundle real manuals with Windows, it would save
a lot of time and frustration.

But a C-128 with two monitors, still beats a PC with only one.

On 2004-04-05, Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote:

>|That sounds like a complete load of crap. Illegal frequency bah.
>
> The same thing applies to fanatical Windows apologists who say their
> system never crashes.

I don't like Windows and I use Linux, but my Windows XP machine doesn't
crash either. It does reboot sometimes when I turn off the monitor which has
4 USB ports which are all in use.

-- 
Etienne von Wettingfeld

Jason Petersen wrote:
|C64 < 1 MIPS
|
|$ cat /proc/cpuinfo |grep mips
|bogomips        : 4128.76

You forget that the typical PC has to reboot about once per hour,
so that skews your millions of instructions per second by a really
huge factor.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Herbert West wrote:
|I build my own IBM clones

Couldn't you just talk somebody into giving you yours?

|and don't have to turn them off or reset them anywhere near as much
|as I must do so with my c=64.

Well, if you'd have gotten a Programmer's Reference Guide with your
C-64, you wouldn't be crashing it so much.  So, you have my condolences.

|I have to reset my c=64 in order to exit many, if not most of my
|commercial programmes.

You could always disassemble the code and fix the darn programs, or
is that beyond you?

|All I need need to do so with my PC is to choose "Close Application."

Your PC must be put together better than mine, because that option
doesn't work for me.  All too often, you have to physically turn
the ON/OFF switch off, wait a few seconds, and then power up again
to behold the system chide you for the power failure.  Ah, but there
is often no other way out of the dilemma.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 01:04:45 -0700, Matthew Montchalin
<mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote:

>Herbert West wrote:
>|When my Commodore 64 crashes, it cant even accomplish the *single*
>|task I had set it to do!  And unlike the my PC, my C-64 doesn-t even
>|come stock with a reset button, much less on the front panel.
>|
>|BTW, it was YOU who purchased the Compaq,
>
>Ahem, it was given to me, and I am very thankful for it, too.
>
>Perhaps someone will give me a CommodoreOne, and I can give that
>a good run-through, too.
>
>|so don blame anybody else if it doesn't perform to your expectations,
>|Matthew.  If you'd asked around a bit, you might have found out that
>|it was pverpriced and vastly proprietary even within the IBM PC world.
>
>Only recently - a week ago - have I discovered a manual for Windows 95.
>God knows why they don't bundle real manuals with Windows, it would save
>a lot of time and frustration.
>
>But a C-128 with two monitors, still beats a PC with only one.


Hehehe..  You should really upgrade the PC to Windows 98SE.  That
allows two monitors, simultaneously, each displaying a seperate task
if you like!  :)

In fact,in order to keep the numberof monitors on my desk manageable,
I run my C-64 and 128 through the video inputs on my PC's
video-capture card.  I can use my PC monitor wo see my Commodore
outputr either full-screen or in a smaller window with the PC tasks
that are running in other windows.

And for the record, I cannot even make this PC crash.  

To be truthful, I built it myself and chose the most compatible parts
and software after a lot of research.  Most people just throw any
software they find in their PC, inviting crashes from badly written
software that can't cooperate with co-running apps.  But that's the
fault of the software authors, and  also the USER, for just loading
stuff in their computer without researching it out first.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 01:15:09 -0700, Matthew Montchalin
<mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Herbert West wrote:
>|I build my own IBM clones
>
>Couldn't you just talk somebody into giving you yours?

What?  And give up the proven performance I build into the system?
(See my last paragraph in this post.  I build my systems based on my
experience).

BTW, concerning the problems you have with the Compaq, perhaps you
might consider that is why it was given away!  I wonder if the
original owner has had better luck with the one he replaced it with.
<g>

>|and don't have to turn them off or reset them anywhere near as much
>|as I must do so with my c=64.
>
>Well, if you'd have gotten a Programmer's Reference Guide with your
>C-64, you wouldn't be crashing it so much.  So, you have my condolences.

I have the PRGuide for both my 64 and 128.  My software exits
gracefully.  I'm talking about commercial stuff that doesn't.

>|I have to reset my c=64 in order to exit many, if not most of my
>|commercial programmes.
>
>You could always disassemble the code and fix the darn programs, or
>is that beyond you?

Why bother?  I have better things to do with my time.  If I need a
feature (or sometimes a cheat on a game <g> ), I'll sometimes reverse
engineer an existing app, be it a c-64 or a Windows app.

>|All I need need to do so with my PC is to choose "Close Application."
>
>Your PC must be put together better than mine, because that option
>doesn't work for me.  All too often, you have to physically turn
>the ON/OFF switch off, wait a few seconds, and then power up again
>to behold the system chide you for the power failure.  Ah, but there
>is often no other way out of the dilemma.


Then it definitely is built better than yours.  I built it myself. I'm
an 30 year veteran electronics technician with a more than a decade of
computer repair experience, including C-64's.  I like both machines
and each has their uses.  Both have their limitations as well.  I just
have educated myself enough to choose the parts and software wisely
enough to make my systems run efficiently.

Herb  

Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> Jason Petersen wrote:
> |C64 < 1 MIPS
> |
> |$ cat /proc/cpuinfo |grep mips
> |bogomips        : 4128.76
> 
> You forget that the typical PC has to reboot about once per hour,
> so that skews your millions of instructions per second by a really
> huge factor.
> 

A "typical" pc of the C64 age. Right. A "typical" pc running any MS 
system software earlier than Windows 2000 - I may also agree. Starting 
from W2000 it is much more stable than anything they accomplished 
before. Although damn sucking boring and disgusting in many areas - it 
doesn't go down that much as the previous "OSes" they scattered around 
the world. And last but not least you can throw Redmond's products to 
the dustbin completely and use any of the freely available (and often 
superior in many areas) operating systems. Those usually tend to crash 
even less.

Etienne von Wettingfeld wrote:
> I don't like Windows and I use Linux, but my Windows XP machine doesn't
> crash either. It does reboot sometimes when I turn off the monitor which has
> 4 USB ports which are all in use.

Actually, when Windoze XP reboots spontaneously it is crashing. 
Microsoft made this the default behavior instead of bluescreening, 
probably to silence all the BSOD jokes. I think there's a registry 
setting that controls this.

-- 
Jason

"Herbert West" <reanimator@miskatonic.arkham.edu> wrote in message
news:1hq470pum9r7df2v1aro1r87e4bsesrp2g@4ax.com...

> Hehehe..  You should really upgrade the PC to Windows 98SE.  That
> allows two monitors, simultaneously, each displaying a seperate task
> if you like!  :)
>
> In fact,in order to keep the numberof monitors on my desk manageable,
> I run my C-64 and 128 through the video inputs on my PC's
> video-capture card.  I can use my PC monitor wo see my Commodore
> outputr either full-screen or in a smaller window with the PC tasks
> that are running in other windows.
>
> And for the record, I cannot even make this PC crash.

Fine, OK

> To be truthful, I built it myself and chose the most compatible parts
> and software after a lot of research.  Most people just throw any
> software they find in their PC, inviting crashes from badly written
> software that can't cooperate with co-running apps.  But that's the
> fault of the software authors, and  also the USER, for just loading
> stuff in their computer without researching it out first.

That's fine and all but how can you do this so called research. Only use
Microsoft stuff and stuff written by big corporations and that's it.
You can NOT easily find info that is consistant as to what
shareware/freeware software will run or not. Maybe here is a clue, if you
haven't heard about it on TechTV (no not on the show with Martin Sargent  -
fine for entertainment but NO real info value) with guys like Leo Laporte
and all. If it is a unknown name then prepare yourself for any crashes. If
it is known for a while (WinZip & WinAmp) then you would have a known
shareware software that is expected to work. If it is not then all you can
do perhaps is just test to see if it runs. If it tends to be unwieldly then
uninstall and remove the software. (First run the Uninstall and/or
Add/Remove Software and remove that program). If you still have a listing in
start menu and/or a folder in Program that is that program's folder - delete
that folder (as for the start menu - right click on the name and click
delete. After you completely clear it out that way, then you are likely
fine. Cool thing about Windows XP is its thing that you can go back to a
prior configuration setting then the date that you installed the stuff.

"Jason Petersen" <borg64@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Irzcc.78405$gA5.962478@attbi_s03...
> Etienne von Wettingfeld wrote:
> > I don't like Windows and I use Linux, but my Windows XP machine doesn't
> > crash either. It does reboot sometimes when I turn off the monitor which
has
> > 4 USB ports which are all in use.
>
> Actually, when Windoze XP reboots spontaneously it is crashing.
> Microsoft made this the default behavior instead of bluescreening,
> probably to silence all the BSOD jokes. I think there's a registry
> setting that controls this.
>

Yes, but I haven't had a reboot either.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404051541340.13301-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> Clockmeister wrote:
> |> CTRL ALT DEL wouldn't work, nothing would work, we had to turn off the
> |> darn thing.  After powering up, the same thing happened over and over
> |> again, all through the night.
> |>
> |> Don't tell me - the Chambers Brothers music CD can be played on any
> |> ordinary CD player, but not with Windows?  Somebody forgot to program
> |> in "illegal frequency" tolerance?
> |
> |That sounds like a complete load of crap. Illegal frequency bah.
>
> The same thing applies to fanatical Windows apologists who say their
> system never crashes.

You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

> |Sorry, but you don't need to make your CD-ROM play a music CD, just
> |insert it and it starts playing, no user interaction required.
>
> Then why did it keep crashing?
>

Because you have no idea how to use a real computer. Stick to your 8 bit
toys Matthew, please, and don't comment any further on subjects (ie PC's and
Windows) that you cannot and obviously have not a clue about.


>

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404060101350.19993-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> Herbert West wrote:
> |When my Commodore 64 crashes, it cant even accomplish the *single*
> |task I had set it to do!  And unlike the my PC, my C-64 doesn-t even
> |come stock with a reset button, much less on the front panel.
> |
> |BTW, it was YOU who purchased the Compaq,
>
> Ahem, it was given to me, and I am very thankful for it, too.
>
> Perhaps someone will give me a CommodoreOne, and I can give that
> a good run-through, too.
>
> |so don blame anybody else if it doesn't perform to your expectations,
> |Matthew.  If you'd asked around a bit, you might have found out that
> |it was pverpriced and vastly proprietary even within the IBM PC world.
>
> Only recently - a week ago - have I discovered a manual for Windows 95.
> God knows why they don't bundle real manuals with Windows, it would save
> a lot of time and frustration.
>
> But a C-128 with two monitors, still beats a PC with only one.

My XP machine runs Win98 and XP simultaneously using virtualPC...
I can even run two instances of [insert favourite C64 emulator] at the same
time, hell I can output one to TV, or a seperate monitor... whatever.

A C128 with two monitors is a hack, nothing more.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404060108080.19993-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> Jason Petersen wrote:
> |C64 < 1 MIPS
> |
> |$ cat /proc/cpuinfo |grep mips
> |bogomips        : 4128.76
>
> You forget that the typical PC has to reboot about once per hour,
> so that skews your millions of instructions per second by a really
> huge factor.

No crash in nine months Matthew, listen to what people are saying.

Nah, they can give the money and I choose the parts I want. Just giving it
to you may not allow you much option in the terms of choices in how you
setup the hardware. In other words, you don't have much choice in what
hardware you want in your PC if someone simply give you a PC.

Herbert built his. My desktop is custom built. My Pentium MMX (Cyrix M2
6x86)  class desktop also was custom built. Yeah, on that one - I stole the
tower from an ol' 486 Gateway File Server (8 drive bays). Took the dual CPU
486 out and stuck the Cyrix in running at 233 MHz (compared to the max of
133 MHz (dual 66 MHz 486) power from two 486. I rather use the one Cyrix.

My current desktop is a P4 but still have the Cyrix unit. The only thing
weak about the Cyrix was the HDs. I could get a bigger HD for it.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404060111220.19993-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...

> Couldn't you just talk somebody into giving you yours?
>
> Well, if you'd have gotten a Programmer's Reference Guide with your
> C-64, you wouldn't be crashing it so much.  So, you have my condolences.

Most commercial programs did not have exit or a Quit game and those that did
sys64738 or equivelent ML code. The games could effectively run in an
environment where it brings you back to the OS like windows but here it is -
GEOS. Now, Herbert or whoever it was says about closeing back to an OS.
Well - is that like going back the the GUI program from a full screen game.
Well, if I have the RAM to stick alot of programs in memory then not a
problem. But given the C64 (stock without running GEOS or WiNGS or any other
OS) is not graphical base but I can always have my game return to the master
Menu (not the main menu of the one game but all the programs on disk) but
that is designing the games with an exit out of game and return to [ BASIC
screen and stock C64 configuration or a Special Menu / Desktop ]. Don't
compare apples and oranges, guys. Some things do not relate.

> You could always disassemble the code and fix the darn programs, or
> is that beyond you?
>
> |All I need need to do so with my PC is to choose "Close Application."
>
> Your PC must be put together better than mine, because that option
> doesn't work for me.  All too often, you have to physically turn
> the ON/OFF switch off, wait a few seconds, and then power up again
> to behold the system chide you for the power failure.  Ah, but there
> is often no other way out of the dilemma.

You can say that. The thing is that if you are going to compare a program
written for a GUI environment then let's look at a C64 running GEOS/Wheels
and a PC running Windows. Herbert, remember dealing with DOS programs in DOS
not a windowed CLI or anything but true old fashion DOS. Most C64 commercial
software taps into all of the RAM and sometimes leaves itself resident. Now
remember TSRs in MS-DOS.

Now, remember those programs can put a wrench into things. The base code of
a program doesn't need to change but some adjustments are all that is
"really" needed to get back to running just fine for other programs.

Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> You forget that the typical PC has to reboot about once per hour,
> so that skews your millions of instructions per second by a really
> huge factor.

Rebooting once per hour really is unusual, even for a Windoze 9x 
machine. If your PC does this you should get it checked out. For the 
record, my longest uptime has been 90+ days on a Linux server, which was 
shut down only because I wanted to add a second hard drive.

Now granted, a C64 can be stable over long periods too. But generally 
only when running a single, well-designed application. With it's small 
amount of RAM, CPU power, and minimal operating system, the 64 has more 
in common with today's embedded systems than general-purpose computers.

It was fantastic in it's day, and I'm very fond of the 64, but the 
machine is now /22/ years old, and the personal computer industry has 
moved at an incredible pace for the last 30 years. There's no comparison 
between a Model-T and a Taurus or F-150, yet you insist on using a 
comparative Pinto.

-- 
Jason
(and let's not even mention floating point units)

Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> And to be fair, if you are going to link up thirty two C-64s together
> and have them decode MP3 files in parallel, we might as well figure in
> the time it takes to write such a strange operating system, seeing as
> how that kind of a beast simply hasn't been written yet.

A "supercomputing" grid of 64's is an interesting idea, but I wonder if 
the control program for such a beast would even fit in 64 KB..

-- 
Jason
(a Beowulf cluster of *what*?)

"Jason Petersen" <borg64@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AeAcc.84823$JO3.44042@attbi_s04...

> Rebooting once per hour really is unusual, even for a Windoze 9x
> machine. If your PC does this you should get it checked out. For the
> record, my longest uptime has been 90+ days on a Linux server, which was
> shut down only because I wanted to add a second hard drive.
>
> Now granted, a C64 can be stable over long periods too. But generally
> only when running a single, well-designed application. With it's small
> amount of RAM, CPU power, and minimal operating system, the 64 has more
> in common with today's embedded systems than general-purpose computers.

Yes and very true and the same is for Windows XP. Through one of the old
apps from 15 years ago and you may have problems and crashes but Microsoft
doesn't claim XP is 100% backward compatible with MS-DOS (in fact they want
to get away from MS-DOS). They recommend programs written for Windows XP
period. Yes, you can run some Windows 98 but they even don't recommend you
do so but they try to keep some level of compatibility for the more popular
"well known and well written" Windows 98 programs. You see, give a GEOS
program written for GEOS for example and we would have to look at
reliability. (At least we can compare with reason). The C64 can probably run
GEOS and its apps without crashing (given you are not an idiot - in which
so, you would crash any computer because you don't have the brain power to
understand how to use anything nor even read instructions - in which case
you are an idiot / Jason - I am not referring to you in the statement.) for
a year as long as the PSU is running good and not blow out for any reason.

> It was fantastic in it's day, and I'm very fond of the 64, but the
> machine is now /22/ years old, and the personal computer industry has
> moved at an incredible pace for the last 30 years. There's no comparison
> between a Model-T and a Taurus or F-150, yet you insist on using a
> comparative Pinto.

The C-One in my book would be reasonable and a good step up from the C64 to
something Commodore-ish and yet powerful enough to do some things reasonably
well and given a well written program that takes advantage of the hardware
fully - hell it may suprise us.

> -- 
> Jason
> (and let's not even mention floating point units)

Yeah, an extra chip on the chipset (well core) then just add an FPU in an
FPGA that plugs into the cartridge port. (FPU = [give or take] a Math
Co-Processor)

>>>>> "JP" == Jason Petersen <borg64@hotmail.com> writes:

JP> Rebooting once per hour really is unusual, even for a Windoze 9x
JP> machine. If your PC does this you should get it checked out. For
JP> the record, my longest uptime has been 90+ days on a Linux server,
JP> which was shut down only because I wanted to add a second hard
JP> drive.

I recommend getting a hotswappable drive system, like SATA, and an OS
that supports it:

  enterprise(8)> uptime
  8:40pm  up 554 day(s), 10:28,  10 users,  load average: 0.16, 0.36, 0.39

;)

-- 
    ___          .     .  .         .       . +  .         .      o   
  _|___|_   +   .  +     .     +         .  Per Olofsson, arkadspelare
    o-o    .      .     .   o         +          MagerValp@cling.gu.se
     -       +            +    .     http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/

"Herbert West" <reanimator@miskatonic.arkham.edu> wrote ...

> Don't get me wrong...  My C-64 (and 128) is useful and fun tool, but
> it has its place as there is only so much that I can do with it, even
> with the tightest and fanciest machine code.  The same goes for my IBM
> PC clone.
>
> The difference is that I am not so *insanely* chauvinistic about 8-bit
> stuff that I must put down more modern technology. You are definitely
> obsessed.  Have you considered seeing a therapist?

He may have considered it once... but decided it would be useless.  After
all, from his point of view, it isn't he who is insane.  It the rest of the
world that is crazy.  Especially us darn PC users!    ;-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote ...

>
> "Jason Petersen" <borg64@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Irzcc.78405$gA5.962478@attbi_s03...
> >
> > Actually, when Windoze XP reboots spontaneously it is crashing.
> > Microsoft made this the default behavior instead of bluescreening,
> > probably to silence all the BSOD jokes. I think there's a registry
> > setting that controls this.
> >
>
> Yes, but I haven't had a reboot either.

That's strange... I haven't had any spontaneous reboots either.    :-)    And
I have been using XP on one machine for well over a year now.

Could it be that many users of another OS (the name of which I will not
mention) still base their opinions of Windows on Windows 3.0?  Guess I will
have to admit that 3.xx did crash frequently, often for no apparent reason.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

If you make it idiot-proof,
someone will make a better idiot!

MagerValp wrote:
  > I recommend getting a hotswappable drive system, like SATA, and an OS
> that supports it:

There's nothing I'd like better, but since my server is basically built 
from whatever old parts I can get my hands on (w00t, K6-III!).. it may 
be awhile. :D

> 
>   enterprise(8)> uptime
>   8:40pm  up 554 day(s), 10:28,  10 users,  load average: 0.16, 0.36, 0.39

Showoff! ;)

-- 
Jason
(beam me up, Scotty!)

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
|My XP machine runs Win98 and XP simultaneously using virtualPC...
|I can even run two instances of [insert favourite C64 emulator]

How about a GOOD c128 emulator?  And speaking of which, when will
they come out with a version of VICE128 that works?

|at the same time, hell I can output one to TV, or a seperate monitor...
|whatever.
|
|A C128 with two monitors is a hack, nothing more.

This is the standard that was set when the C-128 was introduced to
the world, it's a pity that PC's need extra graphics cards to do the
same thing.

Jason Petersen wrote:
|Matthew Montchalin wrote:
|> And to be fair, if you are going to link up thirty two C-64s together
|> and have them decode MP3 files in parallel, we might as well figure in
|> the time it takes to write such a strange operating system, seeing as
|> how that kind of a beast simply hasn't been written yet.
|
|A "supercomputing" grid of 64's is an interesting idea, but I wonder
|if the control program for such a beast would even fit in 64 KB..

If it is going to be one master with 31 slaves, I am not so sure it
is going to perform that well.

But if you do nothing more than pass TALK/LISTEN-like commands back
and forth - but don't use the CBM serial bus, use some other handful
of lines, like the User Port in tandem with the Cassette Port - you
could step in at any one of those 32 c64s and take up some of the more
'local' reins of control.  I naturally assume that all 32 c64s have
their own 1541 disk drives, the only problem is connecting all those
User Ports and Cassette Ports together.  And passing 'status' like
commands to and fro, to anybody else that is linked together, and
see if any of the other machines in parallel really care.

My gut feeling is that one or several of the c64 machines in parallel
will seem to be chugging away on a local task.  As it is 'busy' it
will sporadically be communicating with the rest of the team by
stating its name and id number, the kind of task it is working on,
and 'how' done with it, it is.

A human could walk along, take a look at the monitor associated with
each machine, and intervene if he had to.

It would be similar to a massively parallel robotic conversation engine
that is managed by a team of 32 processors and a handful of humans that
walk around the room, looking for engines that are showing signs of
'trouble.'  Come to think of it, that would be a fun thing to try out
on Internet.

The only reason I mention c64s as opposed to C/PM z80 machines, or
the Apple IIs, is the incredible savings you can realize by buying
used c64s, and hooking them up, and letting them chug away.

Herbert West wrote:
|>Only recently - a week ago - have I discovered a manual for Windows 95.
|>God knows why they don't bundle real manuals with Windows, it would save
|>a lot of time and frustration.
|>
|>But a C-128 with two monitors, still beats a PC with only one.
|
|Hehehe..  You should really upgrade the PC to Windows 98SE.  That
|allows two monitors, simultaneously, each displaying a seperate task
|if you like!  :)

Any good graphics card lets me change the number of rows on the fly,
like on the C-128.  Myself, I prefer 80 columns by 30 rows, how about
you?

And please don't assume that I am using BASIC 7.0.

OTOH, what I would give more than 80 columns.  Sigh....

Herbert West wrote:
|BTW, concerning the problems you have with the Compaq, perhaps you
|might consider that is why it was given away!  I wonder if the
|original owner has had better luck with the one he replaced it with.
|<g>

Haha, that would be a good observation if it weren't for the fact
that it was brand-new out of the box, and the newer PCs that I see
him keep getting, still crash.

Alas, it is the 'Trend' that always stays the same.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
|> |Sorry, but you don't need to make your CD-ROM play a music CD, just
|> |insert it and it starts playing, no user interaction required.
|>
|> Then why did it keep crashing?
|
|Because you have no idea how to use a real computer. Stick to your 8 bit
|toys Matthew, please, and don't comment any further on subjects (ie PC's and
|Windows) that you cannot and obviously have not a clue about.

I wasn't even allowed to touch it until the owner went to sleep.  He
kept swearing it would start playing the song if I just waited long
enough.  After a few hours went by, I clicked the X command on all
those little windows, until there was finally one last diagnostics
window on the screen, and it said "Illegal Frequency."

Just because you don't have much experience with Laptop PC is no
reason to think that all Windows computers behave like your super
souped-up Windows Banger.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Sam Gillett wrote:
|> > Actually, when Windoze XP reboots spontaneously it is crashing.
|> > Microsoft made this the default behavior instead of bluescreening,
|> > probably to silence all the BSOD jokes. I think there's a registry
|> > setting that controls this.
|> >
|>
|> Yes, but I haven't had a reboot either.
|
|That's strange... I haven't had any spontaneous reboots either.    :-)

Well, with my Compaq, I experience freezes more than spontaneous reboots.
I think I have only had three or four spontaneous reboots, ever.  In the
last five years, it is almost always a freeze.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061341540.17216-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...

> Any good graphics card lets me change the number of rows on the fly,
> like on the C-128.  Myself, I prefer 80 columns by 30 rows, how about
> you?

Matthew, PCs don't go by rows typically (unless you are in MS-DOS mode in
pure text video mode) because the PC is always in a graphical bitmap video
mode called "SVGA video mode" aka "chunky video mode" and maybe 8 bits, 16
bits, 24 bits or even 32 bits. (even 4 bit).

PC screen modes are alot like AMIGA as the number of rows is depended in the
verticle height of the text font itself. If the font was an 8 x 8 and the
screen resolution mode was 1280x1024 then take 1280 and divide it by 8 and
you got number of characters wide and take 1024 and divide it by 8.
Everything depends on resolution and size of the font by the amount of
pixels wide and so forth. Also note that alot of fonts are even "vector
fonts" aka scalable fonts.

> And please don't assume that I am using BASIC 7.0.
>
> OTOH, what I would give more than 80 columns.  Sigh....
>

On 2004-04-06, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> Actually, when Windoze XP reboots spontaneously it is crashing. Microsoft
>> made this the default behavior instead of bluescreening, probably to
>> silence all the BSOD jokes. I think there's a registry setting that
>> controls this.
>
> Yes, but I haven't had a reboot either.

But you probably don't have 4 USB devices attached to the foot of your
monitor. :)

It doesn't happen very often. Maybe once every 20 times? If I leave the
monitor on nothing goes wrong.

-- 
Etienne von Wettingfeld

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...

> Only recently - a week ago - have I discovered a manual for Windows 95.
> God knows why they don't bundle real manuals with Windows, it would save
> a lot of time and frustration.

If you can find a copy, I sugguest that you obtain a copy of Windows 95 for
Dummies.  BTW, that wasn't intended as an insult.  I have a copy of Windows
XP for Dummies on my desk.

> But a C-128 with two monitors, still beats a PC with only one.

When was the last time you switched your C128 to 1280x1024 pixel resolution
while editing a digital photograph?
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Watch yourself, or your
reality check will bounce!

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...

> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
> |
> |A C128 with two monitors is a hack, nothing more.
>
> This is the standard that was set when the C-128 was introduced to
> the world, it's a pity that PC's need extra graphics cards to do the
> same thing.

It is true that a stock C128 can drive two monitors, three if you use the RF
output also.  However, the usefulness of multiple monitors is somewaht
doubtful.

It's a pity that you can't download an image from a digital camera to the
C128 to crop it before printing.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Out of my mind.  Back in 5 minutes!

"Jason Petersen" <borg64@hotmail.com> wrote ...

> Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> > |You could equal the processing power of one modern PC by using an entire
> > |room full of C64's.
> >
> > An entire room full of C64s would probably be far in excess of a dozen
> > PCs.
>
> That would depend entirely upon the size of said room.
>
> C64 < 1 MIPS
>
> $ cat /proc/cpuinfo |grep mips
> bogomips        : 4128.76
>
> -- 
> Jason
> (imagining electric bill when running 4,000+ C64s)

While imagining your electric bill, don't forget to include the air
conditioning tonnage required to remove the heat from 4,000 black brick power
supplies.    ;-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...

> Sam Gillett wrote:
> |
> |Now I understand what you are saying Matthew.
>
> Maybe.
>
> |You could equal the processing power of one modern PC by using an entire
> |room full of C64's.
>
> An entire room full of C64s would probably be far in excess of a dozen
> PCs.

Hardly.  Given the fact that an 8502 processor uses less clock cycles per
instruction than an 8088, the C128 in fast mode has roughly the same
processing power as the original IBM XT.  It would take roughly 2000 XT's to
equal the processing power of one modern desktop PC.

It is going to take a fairly large room to hold your 4000 C64's!  And don't
forget Matthew, as you did in another post, it was _your_ idea to use
parallel C64's to do the processing jobs that a PC can.

Everyone here likes C64's and C128's... but most of us have a firm enough
grip on reality to realize that 20 year old hardware is no match for modern
hardware when it comes to raw computing power.  Of course, not many of us
were given a broken Compaq.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

"Jason Petersen" <borg64@hotmail.com> wrote ...

> Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> > And to be fair, if you are going to link up thirty two C-64s together
> > and have them decode MP3 files in parallel, we might as well figure in
> > the time it takes to write such a strange operating system, seeing as
> > how that kind of a beast simply hasn't been written yet.
>
> A "supercomputing" grid of 64's is an interesting idea, but I wonder if
> the control program for such a beast would even fit in 64 KB..

Simple!  Use a RAMLink.  Of course Matthew will object, because the RAMLink
has JiffyDOS built-in... but such is life.    ;-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061400170.17216-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Sam Gillett wrote:
> |> > Actually, when Windoze XP reboots spontaneously it is crashing.
> |> > Microsoft made this the default behavior instead of bluescreening,
> |> > probably to silence all the BSOD jokes. I think there's a registry
> |> > setting that controls this.
> |> >
> |>
> |> Yes, but I haven't had a reboot either.
> |
> |That's strange... I haven't had any spontaneous reboots either.    :-)
>
> Well, with my Compaq, I experience freezes more than spontaneous reboots.
> I think I have only had three or four spontaneous reboots, ever.

You are not using XP, so you shouldn't have any.

 In the
> last five years, it is almost always a freeze.

Freezing isn't caused by Windows, it's caused by your PC.

>

"Etienne von Wettingfeld" <etienne@xs4none.nl.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnc768ui.s0h.etienne@wettingfeld.nl...
> On 2004-04-06, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, when Windoze XP reboots spontaneously it is crashing.
Microsoft
> >> made this the default behavior instead of bluescreening, probably to
> >> silence all the BSOD jokes. I think there's a registry setting that
> >> controls this.
> >
> > Yes, but I haven't had a reboot either.
>
> But you probably don't have 4 USB devices attached to the foot of your
> monitor. :)
>
> It doesn't happen very often. Maybe once every 20 times? If I leave the
> monitor on nothing goes wrong.
>

That might indicate an electrical problem, may have nothing to do with XP at
all. I have three USB devices connected with no problems.

Regards,

Clockmeister.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061350430.17216-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
> |> |Sorry, but you don't need to make your CD-ROM play a music CD, just
> |> |insert it and it starts playing, no user interaction required.
> |>
> |> Then why did it keep crashing?
> |
> |Because you have no idea how to use a real computer. Stick to your 8 bit
> |toys Matthew, please, and don't comment any further on subjects (ie PC's
and
> |Windows) that you cannot and obviously have not a clue about.
>
> I wasn't even allowed to touch it until the owner went to sleep.  He
> kept swearing it would start playing the song if I just waited long
> enough.  After a few hours went by, I clicked the X command on all
> those little windows, until there was finally one last diagnostics
> window on the screen, and it said "Illegal Frequency."

And then what did you do? Illegal Frequency is made up BTW, or you got it
wrong.

> Just because you don't have much experience with Laptop PC is no
> reason to think that all Windows computers behave like your super
> souped-up Windows Banger.

That is an assumption on your part, my experience is quite varied and the
way Windows behaves on any PC is no mystery unless there is a problem
somewhere... and then for me it isn't a problem anyway.

Matthew Montchalin wrote:

> This is the standard that was set when the C-128 was introduced to
> the world, it's a pity that PC's need extra graphics cards to do the
> same thing.

Oh yeah, it's much better to have two completely different graphic 
subsystems inside a single machine, using two completely different 
connectors and with one using its own bank of RAM.

How is this different from having two graphics cards, again?

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061327060.17216-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
> |My XP machine runs Win98 and XP simultaneously using virtualPC...
> |I can even run two instances of [insert favourite C64 emulator]
>
> How about a GOOD c128 emulator?  And speaking of which, when will
> they come out with a version of VICE128 that works?

Any 8 bit emulator.

> |at the same time, hell I can output one to TV, or a seperate monitor...
> |whatever.
> |
> |A C128 with two monitors is a hack, nothing more.
>
> This is the standard that was set when the C-128 was introduced to
> the world, it's a pity that PC's need extra graphics cards to do the
> same thing.

WRONG

I can do it on my PC with only one graphics card.

You clearly are clueless on anything PC related.

You can drive only 2 independent outputs. 1 = VIC-II and the other = VDC.
That is ALL. The RF output is actually just a "re-outputting" of the
composite video. The C-128 drives two different outputs but typical PC cards
that people tend to buy (ATI / NVidia) can display 2 SVGA outputs at upto
the same resolution, an S-Video or Composite video output and in some cases
a digital video output as well. (That's 3-4 outputs)

(I have this hinted towards Matthew - so Matthew do follow)

The C-128 does not display two independent VIC-II outputs or 2 independent
VDC outputs. The VIC-II luminance and possibly chroma is Y-splitted to the
RF modulator - so you can hook up your Commodore to a TV which had only the
antenna input (the ol' thing that you have to untighten two screws on the
back of the TV (Antenna RF input) and put the two -C looking things to. If
you have the Antenna to Coaxial adapter  connected to the RF modulator and
all - then you can hook the C64 to those TV with just coaxial and no
composite video input jacks which was the norm in the early 80s. Most TVs
had at best "coaxial" input and a few had A/V jacks (composite video). It is
not two completely independent video. Just mirrors. The VDC and VIC-II was
something of the C-128 but the VIC-II and the VDC are two separate
resolutions.

"Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message
news:tEFcc.5893$bd4.4837@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

> It is true that a stock C128 can drive two monitors, three if you use the
RF
> output also.  However, the usefulness of multiple monitors is somewaht
> doubtful.
>
> It's a pity that you can't download an image from a digital camera to the
> C128 to crop it before printing.

Don't FORGET the bricks for the power supplies of the 1541-II and 1581s and
the FD-2000s.

"Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message
news:uEFcc.5894$bd4.3743@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> While imagining your electric bill, don't forget to include the air
> conditioning tonnage required to remove the heat from 4,000 black brick
power
> supplies.    ;-)
> -- 
> Best regards,
>
> Sam Gillett
>
> Change is inevitable,
> except from vending machines!

Change is inevitable,
except from an asshole !!!!

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:407336ba$0$56484$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...

> You are not using XP, so you shouldn't have any.

It can occur in Windows 95/98 but in rare occasions.

>  In the
> > last five years, it is almost always a freeze.
>
> Freezing isn't caused by Windows, it's caused by your PC.

Um... drivers ??? application and so forth can freeze things up not just the
hardware Clockmeister. I have dealt with Windows 98 and 95.
If the drivers or settings get corrupted - things can freeze which in all
effect - freeze the kb and mouse but the keyboard & mouse is indeed still
functioning but the OS would stop reading the KB & Mouse. A lock in the
Kernal can lock the whole system. Windows 95/98 does have services/tasks
that run and if things lock or hold the kernal can keep the kernal from
exiting on task and go to other tasks. It may sound bizarre but mostly in my
writing may be confusing but it can lock like what Matthew said but not
everything he said is accurate exactly.

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4073386e$0$56487$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> And then what did you do? Illegal Frequency is made up BTW, or you got it
> wrong.

Illegal is right but I think Frequency is not and he got the error message
wrong.

> That is an assumption on your part, my experience is quite varied and the
> way Windows behaves on any PC is no mystery unless there is a problem
> somewhere... and then for me it isn't a problem anyway.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...

> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Sam Gillett wrote:
> |
> |That's strange... I haven't had any spontaneous reboots either.    :-)
>
> Well, with my Compaq, I experience freezes more than spontaneous reboots.
> I think I have only had three or four spontaneous reboots, ever.  In the
> last five years, it is almost always a freeze.

I may have mentioned this before, but here goes.  I had a Compaq that would
sometimes freeze entirely.  It was one of the type that has the card slots on
a riser board (sometimes called daughter board) that plugs into the mother
board.  Dismounting the riser board, lifting it about an inch, then firmly
reseating it, and remounting it cured the problem.

We used to have some old HP 286's at work that used a riser board.  Whenever
they exibited strange behavior, reseating the riser board would fix them for
another six months or so.  The riser boards kept working loose because the
computers were moved both before and after each use.

This has nothing to do with your problem, except that it gave me the idea to
try reseating the riser board on my Compaq (which has since been replaced
with a PC that does not have a riser board!).
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> Do you really think that most people program the PC from assembly
> language, or from some kind of high level application that muddies
> the waters and prevents the processor from executing at its optimum
> level?

Do you really think?

Back under the bridge with you!

Sam Gillett wrote:
> "Jason Petersen" <borg64@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>>(imagining electric bill when running 4,000+ C64s)
> 
> While imagining your electric bill, don't forget to include the air
> conditioning tonnage required to remove the heat from 4,000 black brick power
> supplies.    ;-)

Actually, cooling shouldn't be much of a problem here in Chicago thanks 
to the Arctic blasts we've been getting lately. However, I don't look 
forward to the job of running to and fro, replacing power bricks as they 
fail. With over 4,000 64's, that would be a full-time job in itself. :)

-- 
Jason

Clockmeister wrote:
|> I wasn't even allowed to touch it until the owner went to sleep.  He
|> kept swearing it would start playing the song if I just waited long
|> enough.  After a few hours went by, I clicked the X command on all
|> those little windows, until there was finally one last diagnostics
|> window on the screen, and it said "Illegal Frequency."
|
|And then what did you do?

I gave up and turned it off; the mouse was dead and the keyboard was
dead, and there was nothing else to do.

|Illegal Frequency is made up BTW, or you got it wrong.

I did NOT make it up, nor did I write the damnable driver that was
installed on the machine.

Really, you should get out more.  There are far more "crappy"
Windows CDROM/CDBURNER drivers in the world than you realize.

Dave Ross wrote:
|Matthew Montchalin wrote:
|
|> This is the standard that was set when the C-128 was introduced to
|> the world, it's a pity that PC's need extra graphics cards to do the
|> same thing.
|
|Oh yeah, it's much better to have two completely different graphic
|subsystems inside a single machine, using two completely different
|connectors and with one using its own bank of RAM.
|
|How is this different from having two graphics cards, again?

They are both roughly 20 years old?

Rick Balkins wrote:
|You can drive only 2 independent outputs. 1 = VIC-II and the other = VDC.
|That is ALL.

Not bad for 20 year old technology, huh?

Now, if Jeri Ellsworth had taken my advice, the CommodoreOne machine
would have been generating extra video out signals, so we could feed
each one to a different LCD on a head-mounted-display.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Sam Gillett wrote:
|> But a C-128 with two monitors, still beats a PC with only one.
|
|When was the last time you switched your C128 to 1280x1024 pixel resolution
|while editing a digital photograph?

One should naturally use the right tool for the right job.

PC computers have their uses, it's just too bad that the code crashes
so much.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Sam Gillett wrote:
|It is true that a stock C128 can drive two monitors, three if you use the RF
|output also.  However, the usefulness of multiple monitors is somewaht
|doubtful.
|
|It's a pity that you can't download an image from a digital camera to the
|C128 to crop it before printing.

The way the market moved, is the main pity.  Sigh.

Sam Gillett wrote:
|> |You could equal the processing power of one modern PC by using an entire
|> |room full of C64's.
|>
|> An entire room full of C64s would probably be far in excess of a dozen
|> PCs.
|
|Hardly.  Given the fact that an 8502 processor uses less clock cycles
|per instruction than an 8088, the C128 in fast mode has roughly the same
|processing power as the original IBM XT.  It would take roughly 2000 XT's
|to equal the processing power of one modern desktop PC.

Do you really think that most people program the PC from assembly
language, or from some kind of high level application that muddies
the waters and prevents the processor from executing at its optimum
level?

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
|> |> Yes, but I haven't had a reboot either.
|> |
|> |That's strange... I haven't had any spontaneous reboots either.    :-)
|>
|> Well, with my Compaq, I experience freezes more than spontaneous reboots.
|> I think I have only had three or four spontaneous reboots, ever.
|
|You are not using XP, so you shouldn't have any.

But I nevertheless have had spontaneous reboots.

|> In the last five years, it is almost always a freeze.
|
|Freezing isn't caused by Windows, it's caused by your PC.

A typical diagnostics window indicates a host of problems, but it's
usually either a "page fault" or "illegal instruction."

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404062005030.7449-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...

> Not bad for 20 year old technology, huh?

Not bad to be honest. Again that's 20 year ago. Technology has advanced
though and I truly can see a reason for dual SVGA output - even for a C-One
but with limited resolution though. Yeah, the SVGA can be output and
interfaced to two LCD screens. Mostly to stay within bandwidth.

> Now, if Jeri Ellsworth had taken my advice, the CommodoreOne machine
> would have been generating extra video out signals, so we could feed
> each one to a different LCD on a head-mounted-display.


Don't fret Matthew, it is still possible. It just requires a "core" mod that
allows me to redefine pins. Now, don't fear too much.

For your sake, the C-One is reconfigurable which means that its hardware can
be configured for the application if need be.
The key is to work out an OS that can hold up to the reconfigurability
without crashing and I believe it can be done.

Who says we can't have a "Please stand by....".   :-D

Commodore-ish - isn't it.

When it gives that statement, it would then do what is needed to adjust the
FPGA configuration and keep the data retained.

If done right, moments later - things proceed and heck - you may be able to
plug the new hardware into place.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404062013290.7449-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...

> Do you really think that most people program the PC from assembly
> language, or from some kind of high level application that muddies
> the waters and prevents the processor from executing at its optimum
> level?

Well, they often use C/C++ for commercial software and many shareware but
the compiler would have a feature called "optimization". Given that the
person who makes the compiler are really good, it will be quite optimal.
Now, some developers will further optimize the "executable" in assembly by
optimize compiling into the object (which would be an assembly object which
can be manually optimized with some automated optimization of the actual
assembly object files into a highly optimized executable. Now, you could do
so but with commercial demands for HIGHLY graphical 3D games like Unreal
Tournament 2004 and other games with programs as large as 1 or even 2 CDs.
You want to program over 300 Megabytes of actual code and then there is the
graphic files and "movie clips" (animated clips). Would you want to manually
program 300-500 Megabytes of actual program code. Don't think so.

Matthew Montchalin wrote:

> |How is this different from having two graphics cards, again?
> 
> They are both roughly 20 years old?

And that answers my question...how?

Dave Ross wrote:
|Matthew Montchalin wrote:
|
|> |How is this different from having two graphics cards, again?
|>
|> They are both roughly 20 years old?
|
|And that answers my question...how?

What exactly is your point?  That Commodore did it first, and it
costs a lot less to buy a C-128 used?

Rick Balkins wrote:
|Technology has advanced though and I truly can see a reason for dual
|SVGA output - even for a C-One but with limited resolution though.

What would you do with dual SVGA output?

As for me, well, let's see.  I would slap all the commands and menus
on one screen, complete with pop-up diagnostics bars and grid-graphs
so you could display the performance of certain subroutines on another
screen, where all the pretty pictures and stuff are displayed.  (And you
ought to be able to plug two mouses in, one for one screen, and another
for the other; that way one person can move stuff around on one screen
and the other person can tell him where the problems are popping up.)

|Yeah, the SVGA can be output and interfaced to two LCD screens.

Sure, but what is the reason for the 'state of the art' PC software
lagging behind so much?  Don't the programmers have any vision, or
concept of pushing the envelope?  Perhaps it is because so many of them
program in C instead of assembly language?

On 2004-04-06, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> But you probably don't have 4 USB devices attached to the foot of your
>> monitor. :)
>>
>> It doesn't happen very often. Maybe once every 20 times? If I leave the
>> monitor on nothing goes wrong.
>>
>
> That might indicate an electrical problem, may have nothing to do with XP at
> all. I have three USB devices connected with no problems.

One of my devices is a Force Feedback joystick. Sometimes (but this is
*VERY* rare) when I turn off my monitor the joystick violently wiggles for a
fraction of a second. As the monitor on/off button is located very near to
the location of the joystick this 'effect' gave me a scare the first 2 times
it happened. :)

BTW When I boot that PC in SuSE turning off/on the monitor causes the
hardware detection daemon to crash. The PC never rebooted under Linux, but I
rarely use Linux on that PC as a have a dedicated Linux PC.

-- 
Etienne von Wettingfeld

On 2004-04-06, Rick Balkins
<rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote:

>> And then what did you do? Illegal Frequency is made up BTW, or you got it
>> wrong.
>
> Illegal is right but I think Frequency is not and he got the error message
> wrong.

This computer I'm using right now (dual Pentium III 1Ghz) sometimes gives
this error in its BIOS. There is an issue with the AGP slot forcing me to
reset the machine a few times when I turn it on to get a non-corrupted
picture. Sometimes the PC puts me in the BIOS with this 'illegal frequency'
error and claims my 2 P3s are set at 500Mhz.

When you fiddle around with the CPU multipliers in the BIOS you can also get
this message.

-- 
Etienne von Wettingfeld

Matthew Montchalin wrote:

> What exactly is your point?  That Commodore did it first, and it
> costs a lot less to buy a C-128 used?

Sure, the 128 did it first.  I didn't see software supporting two 
monitors on the PC until 1991, when Falcon 3.0 would simulate one of the 
F-16's VDUs on a monochrome display if you had an extra text-only video 
card plugged in.

And sure I can buy a 128 used for under $20.

But those aren't what I was responding to.  You said:

"This is the standard that was set when the C-128 was introduced to
the world, it's a pity that PC's need extra graphics cards to do the
same thing."

When asked how this is different from the two separate graphics systems 
in the 128, you came back with a comment that the 128 did it twenty 
years ago.  When asked how that is relevant to the discussion, you try 
to bring the price of a used 128 into it!

Can you answer with anything besides a red herring?

I'm reminded of a bit from the Simpsons:

"Lisa: You want to know what happened?! Really?! We were playing 
foursquare and I called "no double-taps." And Ralph double-taps. And I 
said, "You're out." and he says, "I can do a somersault," which had 
nothing to do with anything!"

Dave Ross <watsonc64@ten.tsacmoc> wrote:

> Sure, the 128 did it first.  I didn't see software supporting two 
> monitors on the PC until 1991, when Falcon 3.0 would simulate one of the 
> F-16's VDUs on a monochrome display if you had an extra text-only video 
> card plugged in.

Things like debuggers took advantage of it much earlier. The ability to use 
two displays (CGA and MDA adapters can peacefully coexist) has been there 
since the IBM PC (or maybe the XT) was released, easily predating the C128.


Regards,

Laust

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:39:11 -0700, "Rick Balkins"
<rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote:

>Nah, they can give the money and I choose the parts I want. Just giving it
>to you may not allow you much option in the terms of choices in how you
>setup the hardware. In other words, you don't have much choice in what
>hardware you want in your PC if someone simply give you a PC.

Exactly!  Thanks for clarifying it to Matthew, Rick.

>Herbert built his. My desktop is custom built. My Pentium MMX (Cyrix M2
>6x86)  class desktop also was custom built. Yeah, on that one - I stole the
>tower from an ol' 486 Gateway File Server (8 drive bays). Took the dual CPU
>486 out and stuck the Cyrix in running at 233 MHz (compared to the max of
>133 MHz (dual 66 MHz 486) power from two 486. I rather use the one Cyrix.

Wish I had room on my destop for an older 486 class PC. I only have
room for 2 (along with a C=128 and 3 1571's).  

>My current desktop is a P4 but still have the Cyrix unit. The only thing
>weak about the Cyrix was the HDs. I could get a bigger HD for it.

Just to clarify... "Cyrix" has nothing to do with HD size. Its a limit
imposed by the BIOS on the motherbaord. A decade ago, what was a
"sensible" bitwidth is too small nowadays.  I suppose the BIOS cold be
re-written, but its much easier and cheaper to buy a newer board and
CPU chip.  

>"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404060111220.19993-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
>
>> Couldn't you just talk somebody into giving you yours?
>>
>> Well, if you'd have gotten a Programmer's Reference Guide with your
>> C-64, you wouldn't be crashing it so much.  So, you have my condolences.
>
>Most commercial programs did not have exit or a Quit game and those that did
>sys64738 or equivelent ML code. The games could effectively run in an
>environment where it brings you back to the OS like windows but here it is -
>GEOS. Now, Herbert or whoever it was says about closeing back to an OS.
>Well - is that like going back the the GUI program from a full screen game.
>Well, if I have the RAM to stick alot of programs in memory then not a
>problem. But given the C64 (stock without running GEOS or WiNGS or any other
>OS) is not graphical base but I can always have my game return to the master
>Menu (not the main menu of the one game but all the programs on disk) but
>that is designing the games with an exit out of game and return to [ BASIC
>screen and stock C64 configuration or a Special Menu / Desktop ]. Don't
>compare apples and oranges, guys. Some things do not relate.

Again, thanks for expanding the explanation.


>> You could always disassemble the code and fix the darn programs, or
>> is that beyond you?
>>
>> |All I need need to do so with my PC is to choose "Close Application."
>>
>> Your PC must be put together better than mine, because that option
>> doesn't work for me.  All too often, you have to physically turn
>> the ON/OFF switch off, wait a few seconds, and then power up again
>> to behold the system chide you for the power failure.  Ah, but there
>> is often no other way out of the dilemma.
>
>You can say that. The thing is that if you are going to compare a program
>written for a GUI environment then let's look at a C64 running GEOS/Wheels
>and a PC running Windows. Herbert, remember dealing with DOS programs in DOS
>not a windowed CLI or anything but true old fashion DOS. Most C64 commercial
>software taps into all of the RAM and sometimes leaves itself resident. Now
>remember TSRs in MS-DOS.

Right!  Actually, I was hanging onto DOS and real mode long after
Windows 2000 came out!  <g>  My machines dual-booted with a true DOS
6.22 as an option.   

>Now, remember those programs can put a wrench into things. The base code of
>a program doesn't need to change but some adjustments are all that is
>"really" needed to get back to running just fine for other programs.

The same goes for poorly written Windows code which tries to grab
memory already in use, fails to release memory tio the system upon
closure, or "cheats" by not *exactly* following windows API's.  There
are a lot of lazy or, unskilled or incompetent programmers out there
in Windows land.  The bad thing about code like that is that it often
screws up a multitasking system in such a subtle way that the the
damage doesn't hit immediately.  The system is stable until another
program reaches the area of memory affected by the now unloaded bad
program.  (Could take hours or days or never ata all).  Thus people
often blame Windows  because they can't immediately pin the bug on the
actual culprit.  Bad code in DOS or on a C-64 (single-tasking) system
is immediately apparent.  Bootom line: Bad code in a multitasking
system like windows can plant a time-bomb for a crash. 

Sorry if I went off on a tangent.  <g>

"Herbert West" <reanimator@miskatonic.arkham.edu> wrote in message
news:8pb870l3uk1vmuho74s3mi7jif7a6052sm@4ax.com...

> Exactly!  Thanks for clarifying it to Matthew, Rick.
>
> Wish I had room on my destop for an older 486 class PC. I only have
> room for 2 (along with a C=128 and 3 1571's).
>

> Just to clarify... "Cyrix" has nothing to do with HD size. Its a limit
> imposed by the BIOS on the motherbaord. A decade ago, what was a
> "sensible" bitwidth is too small nowadays.  I suppose the BIOS cold be
> re-written, but its much easier and cheaper to buy a newer board and
> CPU chip.

Your right, but I meant the weak thing with my Cyrix based PC was the HD. I
messed up on the typing.  Got distracted due to someone interrupting me and
I got the context fouled up. The weak thing with my "Cyrix PC" was that I
had used two 650 MBytes HDs and never bought the larger 4 or 8 GB HDs for
it. That was what I was intending to write. My fault.

> >Most commercial programs did not have exit or a Quit game and those that
did
> >sys64738 or equivelent ML code. The games could effectively run in an
> >environment where it brings you back to the OS like windows but here it
is -
> >GEOS. Now, Herbert or whoever it was says about closeing back to an OS.
> >Well - is that like going back the the GUI program from a full screen
game.
> >Well, if I have the RAM to stick alot of programs in memory then not a
> >problem. But given the C64 (stock without running GEOS or WiNGS or any
other
> >OS) is not graphical base but I can always have my game return to the
master
> >Menu (not the main menu of the one game but all the programs on disk) but
> >that is designing the games with an exit out of game and return to [
BASIC
> >screen and stock C64 configuration or a Special Menu / Desktop ]. Don't
> >compare apples and oranges, guys. Some things do not relate.
>
> Again, thanks for expanding the explanation.

Yeah, I done a few things with a few programs in the past where I had it
exit back to menu or straight to BASIC.

> >> You could always disassemble the code and fix the darn programs, or
> >> is that beyond you?
> >>
> >> |All I need need to do so with my PC is to choose "Close Application."
> >>
> >> Your PC must be put together better than mine, because that option
> >> doesn't work for me.  All too often, you have to physically turn
> >> the ON/OFF switch off, wait a few seconds, and then power up again
> >> to behold the system chide you for the power failure.  Ah, but there
> >> is often no other way out of the dilemma.
> >
> >You can say that. The thing is that if you are going to compare a program
> >written for a GUI environment then let's look at a C64 running
GEOS/Wheels
> >and a PC running Windows. Herbert, remember dealing with DOS programs in
DOS
> >not a windowed CLI or anything but true old fashion DOS. Most C64
commercial
> >software taps into all of the RAM and sometimes leaves itself resident.
Now
> >remember TSRs in MS-DOS.
>
> Right!  Actually, I was hanging onto DOS and real mode long after
> Windows 2000 came out!  <g>  My machines dual-booted with a true DOS
> 6.22 as an option.
>
> >Now, remember those programs can put a wrench into things. The base code
of
> >a program doesn't need to change but some adjustments are all that is
> >"really" needed to get back to running just fine for other programs.
>
> The same goes for poorly written Windows code which tries to grab
> memory already in use, fails to release memory tio the system upon
> closure, or "cheats" by not *exactly* following windows API's.  There
> are a lot of lazy or, unskilled or incompetent programmers out there
> in Windows land.  The bad thing about code like that is that it often
> screws up a multitasking system in such a subtle way that the the
> damage doesn't hit immediately.  The system is stable until another
> program reaches the area of memory affected by the now unloaded bad
> program.  (Could take hours or days or never ata all).  Thus people
> often blame Windows  because they can't immediately pin the bug on the
> actual culprit.  Bad code in DOS or on a C-64 (single-tasking) system
> is immediately apparent.  Bootom line: Bad code in a multitasking
> system like windows can plant a time-bomb for a crash.
>
> Sorry if I went off on a tangent.  <g>

Good explanation. Bad code is derived from bad programmers and can put a
wrench in the works for any system. Don't follow the rules and you risk
"destablizing" the OS / computer and crashes occur. Of course being that
Windows is popular - hence a big target for those who create viruses. Also
due to popularity and that it is the ONLY platform that they teach
programming on in most of the colleges and universities - gives a
fundamental that there will be good and bad programmers. Most of the bad
ones are derived from those who are "drop outs" that manage to secure a
programming job or do it independently (hence freeware/shareware). Most
commercial companies only want ones who actually completed a degree and
especially in the leading positions (Bachelors in Computer Science /
Programming or a Masters or better)  and thus the quality if factored in.
Also they tend to want a portfolio of the works you have done. Typically,
this is what they will be looking at.

Since the fact that most people who program go to college to learn,
sometimes they only have an Associates and don't know really how to program
because they really don't spend the time and they dropped out then go get a
certification. You would find most of the crappy stuff in the
shareware/freeware (but just because you will find most of the crap stuff in
the shareware/freeware market does NOT mean all of them are bad) because
ANYONE can enter the freeware/shareware market and often are done by
independent programmers (sometimes groups) making a piece of software and
then putting it up for DL and often more than not - you don't have a
corporate human relations individual pre-screening and then a second level
of screening is done when the senior software engineers look over the
portfolio of submitted work - looking for quality of code. Most commercial
software does not have as much problems. Most bad software simply comes from
BAD programmers who really do not know how to program.

(Matthew, do read !!!!) ----------^

Dave Ross wrote:
|"This is the standard that was set when the C-128 was introduced to
|the world, it's a pity that PC's need extra graphics cards to do the
|same thing."
|
|When asked how this is different from the two separate graphics systems
|in the 128, you came back with a comment that the 128 did it twenty
|years ago.  When asked how that is relevant to the discussion, you try
|to bring the price of a used 128 into it!
|
|Can you answer with anything besides a red herring?

Are you saying that the standard was neither met nor set when the
C-128 came out with the two-monitor ability in 1985 (roughly)?  Or
are you saying that nobody knew about this ability, and therefore
there was no standard to be observed?

I really don't understand what the thrust of your argument is.  Are
you quibbling about the exact month, not just year, this happened?

What part about the C-128 having "set the standard in 1985" do you not
understand?  That you admit the PC couldn't do it until 1991 seems to
prove my point.  Just because most people in the year 2004 use the PC
as though it were a glorified teletype machine does nothing to disprove
the point I made.

"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in
message news:1076g49bbpenqa7@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:407336ba$0$56484$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> > You are not using XP, so you shouldn't have any.
>
> It can occur in Windows 95/98 but in rare occasions.
>
> >  In the
> > > last five years, it is almost always a freeze.
> >
> > Freezing isn't caused by Windows, it's caused by your PC.
>
> Um... drivers ??? application and so forth can freeze things up not just
the
> hardware Clockmeister. I have dealt with Windows 98 and 95.
> If the drivers or settings get corrupted - things can freeze which in all
> effect - freeze the kb and mouse but the keyboard & mouse is indeed still
> functioning but the OS would stop reading the KB & Mouse. A lock in the
> Kernal can lock the whole system. Windows 95/98 does have services/tasks

It can happen, but with updated drivers this is very rare indeed.

> that run and if things lock or hold the kernal can keep the kernal from
> exiting on task and go to other tasks. It may sound bizarre but mostly in
my
> writing may be confusing but it can lock like what Matthew said but not
> everything he said is accurate exactly.
>

It can happen, but not often. Matthew doesn't know what he is talking about.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404062015510.7449-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
> |> |> Yes, but I haven't had a reboot either.
> |> |
> |> |That's strange... I haven't had any spontaneous reboots either.    :-)
> |>
> |> Well, with my Compaq, I experience freezes more than spontaneous
reboots.
> |> I think I have only had three or four spontaneous reboots, ever.
> |
> |You are not using XP, so you shouldn't have any.
>
> But I nevertheless have had spontaneous reboots.
>
> |> In the last five years, it is almost always a freeze.
> |
> |Freezing isn't caused by Windows, it's caused by your PC.
>
> A typical diagnostics window indicates a host of problems, but it's
> usually either a "page fault" or "illegal instruction."

Have you tried running a memory check program?

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404062000410.7449-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> Clockmeister wrote:
> |> I wasn't even allowed to touch it until the owner went to sleep.  He
> |> kept swearing it would start playing the song if I just waited long
> |> enough.  After a few hours went by, I clicked the X command on all
> |> those little windows, until there was finally one last diagnostics
> |> window on the screen, and it said "Illegal Frequency."
> |
> |And then what did you do?
>
> I gave up and turned it off; the mouse was dead and the keyboard was
> dead, and there was nothing else to do.
>
> |Illegal Frequency is made up BTW, or you got it wrong.
>
> I did NOT make it up, nor did I write the damnable driver that was
> installed on the machine.
>
> Really, you should get out more.  There are far more "crappy"
> Windows CDROM/CDBURNER drivers in the world than you realize.

I built many systems and problems reading audio CD's has never been a
problem. You are the one that lacks experience, it's *very* obvious.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404062246550.18605-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> Rick Balkins wrote:
> |Technology has advanced though and I truly can see a reason for dual
> |SVGA output - even for a C-One but with limited resolution though.
>
> What would you do with dual SVGA output?
>
> As for me, well, let's see.  I would slap all the commands and menus
> on one screen, complete with pop-up diagnostics bars and grid-graphs
> so you could display the performance of certain subroutines on another
> screen, where all the pretty pictures and stuff are displayed.  (And you
> ought to be able to plug two mouses in, one for one screen, and another
> for the other; that way one person can move stuff around on one screen
> and the other person can tell him where the problems are popping up.)

Why not have one mouse that goes from screen one screen to the other. Think
? If each screen was 800 x 600 then have a virtual screen that is 1600x600
and divide in half. Ok, so if the mouse goes from left to right from left
monitor  (screen 1) from 0 to 799 then once it reaches 800 - display the
pixels that go pass the right side of of screen 1 onto screen 2. Now pixels
800-1599 is on screen 2. Use one logical bit map plane of 1600 x 600 and
have two screens at 800x600. Ok, you could ideally go upto 1280x1024 per
screen and have 2560x1024 is the virtual plane for the video. As long as we
have bandwidth and RAM for the content.

> |Yeah, the SVGA can be output and interfaced to two LCD screens.
>
> Sure, but what is the reason for the 'state of the art' PC software
> lagging behind so much?  Don't the programmers have any vision, or
> concept of pushing the envelope?  Perhaps it is because so many of them
> program in C instead of assembly language?

I look and ask for creative thought here and you do brought up some creative
thought here which I personally liked when working even on the PC. I like
the same for C-One. I love to use two SVGA based LCD screens (for
roominess). One of the beauty of two screen output is that I can have my
code listed on one screen and have a browser (to look info up on the web)
and a window or simply execute the program in full screen on just one of the
screens and that is a beauty. I can work with both screens. I can have my
code listed (in a scrollable "maximized" window) and my code execute on the
other screen or even look things up on the web on the other screen then what
my code is listed on so I can compare info on the web with what I am working
with. I really wouldn't want to work with two mouse and a keyboard and just
have my cursor move from one screen to the other just by continuing to move
my mouse. You see, that is the flexibility that I would like. It is much
like you wrote above but just one mouse is needed. From my understanding,
much of what PC programmers write software for is for the masses as that is
what they are paid to do. If they wrote programs that the mass doesn't use
then the mass would not buy and the company loose money and they get fired.

In the commercial market, YOU must make products that the customers can and
would use. Why, if customers can use and would use means the customer is
going to be interested in buying. Customers buy stuff that they can use
otherwise they don't buy. Of course, if they don't have choices - then the
customers would often buy the product that "best" meets if no single one
completely does all. Of course this was the same in the days of Commodore's
height when there was 6 Million users who used Commodore computers. Given
500 Million users who use PCs that are x86 compatible - there is a big thing
around Windows and Linux in terms of commercial software. Windows having
been through several release since the late 80s, there is alot of software
written for Windows/MS-DOS that doesn't work in two screen environments
especially full screen games which will only use the main video output
(often the "left" screen or screen 1). Code would default to that. Now, this
is due to the fact most people don't have two screens on one PC because most
people don't have the space and often buys a new PC and gets rid of the old
PC because they don't have the space for two.

In the commercial market, if you want to make the most money - you produce
to the largest common denominator of people. This is why Windows is keeping
the stronghold. Most people use Windows XP. Otherwise you produce to next
largest which is Linux and the third is Mac.

In the Commodore related scene, producing for the Commodore 64 will be where
you would likely get the most money. (if you don't count AMIGA) If the C-One
produces well then it may be commercially viable.

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:407483f5$0$56478$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> It can happen, but with updated drivers this is very rare indeed.

True but if he stuck drivers in for Windows 98 into 95 may cause problems
too.

> > that run and if things lock or hold the kernal can keep the kernal from
> > exiting on task and go to other tasks. It may sound bizarre but mostly
in
> my
> > writing may be confusing but it can lock like what Matthew said but not
> > everything he said is accurate exactly.
> >
>
> It can happen, but not often. Matthew doesn't know what he is talking
about.

I have figured this out on his knowledge of the PC. He's dangerous with just
little bits of info. He has some things figured out ok but he also got alot
of things off and alot of things misunderstood. In which he knows very
little and does not know what he is talking about for the most part. I would
accept his message of what the error is but I would think it has to do with
something he has on his computer. His problem is a bit on the level of
"confusing" and he gives us some info that is real with alot of bullshit
too. I am using my knowledge of error messages and all to try to diagnose
the facts from what he says from the bullshit.

Anyway, I think he is right to say he has had these symptoms. I am doing my
best to disregard the bullshit which I know is bullshit.

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
|> |> In the last five years, it is almost always a freeze.
|> |
|> |Freezing isn't caused by Windows, it's caused by your PC.
|>
|> A typical diagnostics window indicates a host of problems, but it's
|> usually either a "page fault" or "illegal instruction."
|
|Have you tried running a memory check program?

Has Microsoft tried writing an OS that actually works?

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Rick Balkins wrote:
|> (And you ought to be able to plug two mouses in, one for one screen,
|> and another for the other; that way one person can move stuff around
|> on one screen and the other person can tell him where the problems are
|> popping up.)
|
|Why not have one mouse that goes from screen one screen to the other.

Because with two mice, you can have two people working on a program
together.

   <snip>

|> |Yeah, the SVGA can be output and interfaced to two LCD screens.
|>
|> Sure, but what is the reason for the 'state of the art' PC software
|> lagging behind so much?  Don't the programmers have any vision, or
|> concept of pushing the envelope?  Perhaps it is because so many of them
|> program in C instead of assembly language?
|
|I look and ask for creative thought here and you do brought up some
|creative thought here which I personally liked when working even on the
|PC. I like the same for C-One. I love to use two SVGA based LCD screens
|(for roominess).

If there were two LCD screens, then you could pump the signal into a
'head mounted display' unit

|One of the beauty of two screen output is that I can have my code listed
|on one screen and have a browser (to look info up on the web) and a
|window or simply execute the program in full screen on just one of the
|screens and that is a beauty. I can work with both screens.

Is this the way that you work with your C-128, too?

|I can have my code listed (in a scrollable "maximized" window) and my
|code execute on the other screen or even look things up on the web on
|the other screen then what my code is listed on so I can compare info
|on the web with what I am working with.

And you can feed the data of one screen to a student that you are trying
to instruct, for instance.

Rick Balkins wrote:
|"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
|news:407483f5$0$56478$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
|>
|> It can happen, but with updated drivers this is very rare indeed.
|
|True but if he stuck drivers in for Windows 98 into 95 may cause problems
|too.

IIRC, it was my brother's laptop.  He wanted me to sit there "until it
starts playing" but he went to sleep at midnight.  Around 2:00 am, I
decided to start exiting out of all of those diagnostics windows until
there was finally just one, and it said "ILLEGAL FREQUENCY."

Please rest assured that I do not go around installing drivers in my
brother's laptop (though the government might well have suckered him
into going to a site that infected his system) and haven't the slightest
idea (or interest) why it came up with that error message.

Sheeeeesh, you Windows apologists blame everything on the user.  There
are far more crappy Windows machines out there than you guys admit.

|IIRC, it was my brother's laptop.  He wanted me to sit there "until it
|starts playing" but he went to sleep at midnight.  Around 2:00 am, I
|decided to start exiting out of all of those diagnostics windows until
|there was finally just one, and it said "ILLEGAL FREQUENCY."

I think we had two different music CDs that we were trying to listen
to, the first being The Chambers Brothers and the second being Ant Trip
Ceremony, both being great albums from the Sixties.

|Please rest assured that I do not go around installing drivers in my
|brother's laptop (though the government might well have suckered him
|into going to a site that infected his system) and haven't the slightest
|idea (or interest) why it came up with that error message.
|
|Sheeeeesh, you Windows apologists blame everything on the user.  There
|are far more crappy Windows machines out there than you guys admit.

Perhaps the CDROM that he was trying to use with his CDROMBURNER driver
did not match up with the laptop he had brought over?

||IIRC, it was my brother's laptop.  He wanted me to sit there "until it
||starts playing" but he went to sleep at midnight.  Around 2:00 am, I
||decided to start exiting out of all of those diagnostics windows until
||there was finally just one, and it said "ILLEGAL FREQUENCY."
|
|I think we had two different music CDs that we were trying to listen
|to, the first being The Chambers Brothers and the second being Ant Trip
|Ceremony, both being great albums from the Sixties.

I can't keep my eye on him continuously, but I am fairly sure that he
had only managed to put one CD into the CD tray.  He is an expert mouse
clicking kind of person, it seems like second nature to him.  I keep
telling him that Windows is far more likely to crash if he clicks it
fast than if he clicks it slow, so maybe that was why we ended up with
an "ILLEGAL FREQUENCY" message?

Hi Matthew,

Just to stick my neck into this discussion topic...


> What would you do with dual SVGA output?

That's a good questions. Many years ago when Matrox released their
G400 Dual Head video card, I decided to buy one. At the time, the G400
was a best-of-bread card for dual SVGA support. Unfortunately, I
really couldn't find any compelling ways to utilize the dual display
feature.

One interesting use was that I created web pages on one monitor and
viewed the results in a browser on the other. Sometimes, I'd load a
browser in one monitor at 1024x768 and 800x600 on the other just to
see how a site would look.  These were cool but not very compelling. I
could just as easily use ALT-TAB in Windows.


> As for me, well, let's see.  I would slap all the commands and menus
> on one screen, complete with pop-up diagnostics bars and grid-graphs

This was a popular option for early AutoCAD users. When I use to
manage a chain of computer stores in the early 90s, I configured a
special AutoCAD package that used both SVGA and monochrome video
cards. The result was that all your commands and status info would be
on the monochrome display while the object you were working on would
be in the SVGA display. It was quite effective and I sold a ton of
those systems to students and professionals alike.

I did mention this as an example a few months ago with the C-128. I
was surprised that no CAD software was ever developed for the C-128
that enabled this sort of functionality. It surely would have been a
killer app back then!


> lagging behind so much?  Don't the programmers have any vision, or
> concept of pushing the envelope?  Perhaps it is because so many of them

I totally agree. There weren't any compelling applications that
effectively utilized my dual display setup. Although, Photoshop
allowed me to reposition the command tabs onto the second display,
which was great. Right now, I have an ATI Radeon 8500 but I can't be
bother to run dual displays.

I do have a stock broker friend who has a dual display setup and he
loves it! You couldn't imagine all the data, charts, tracking, etc. he
has going on both monitors. For him, it's a very effective solution
that just wouldn't be the same with a single monitor.

I suspect most people use it as nothing more than an expanded desktop
environment.

So, going back to the C-One...would having dual display capabilities
help it? I think it really could if useful software was written that
takes advantage of the displays. Otherwise, it will just be another
hyped feature that no one will use.

It has been reported that Nintendo's next generation Gameboy is going
to be a dual display system; hence the name Nintendo DS. They have
envisioned games that might have the main gameplay on one display and
maps or player status on the second. Personally, I think it's a great
idea and I can't wait to see how people utilize this technology. On
the other hand, it could prove to be a distraction. Whatever the case,
this should help people to think more in terms of dual display usage
and hopefully translate that over to effective PC/Mac apps.

MikeC

Rick Balkins wrote:
|I really wouldn't want to work with two mouse and a keyboard and just
|have my cursor move from one screen to the other just by continuing to
|move my mouse.

What is wrong with two mouses and two keyboards?

You could have one person fixing the code on the one side while the
other person is moving his mouse and causing all kinds of problems
on the other?

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404071649400.4043-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> Rick Balkins wrote:

> IIRC, it was my brother's laptop.  He wanted me to sit there "until it
> starts playing" but he went to sleep at midnight.  Around 2:00 am, I
> decided to start exiting out of all of those diagnostics windows until
> there was finally just one, and it said "ILLEGAL FREQUENCY."
>
> Please rest assured that I do not go around installing drivers in my
> brother's laptop (though the government might well have suckered him
> into going to a site that infected his system) and haven't the slightest
> idea (or interest) why it came up with that error message.
>
> Sheeeeesh, you Windows apologists blame everything on the user.  There
> are far more crappy Windows machines out there than you guys admit.

Ok, it may not be your fault but something your brother did. (knowingly or
not knowingly)

First off, by default Windows 95/98/ME/2000 & XP do not generally auto
update drivers by default unless configured.

99.99% of problems in PCs have some level of a user action involvement. It
may not be something you or your brother done all at one time.
It isn't strictly user or software but some combination of actions done by
the user and how different software react. You see, things can happen with
or without knowing. Even viruses infecting the system often has some user's
action involved. Windows is not completely automated by default.

Even on a Compaq !!!!

First off, I am not apologizing at all. It is not my fault or my problem.
One of the things you stated that has a 99% chance of being bullshit is your
blaming of the "government" since the government generally can give a shit
less about you. You are not transporting drugs or is supporting terrorist
groups, or are you ???? or your brother ????

You see, they don't have the time or the man power or the slightest interest
to care about people who are meaningless to them or their job.

Windows is built around event driven action triggered by user's choice of
action. That is how the User Interface is structured around.
It is not impossible for automated action stemming from popups with viruses
attached to them and automated action taken. This is neither "caused" by
Microsoft and is indirectly connected to the user but may not be the user's
fault either. The fault is the responsibility of the person who wrote the
virus itself. They are the vandals who "deliberately" write them to
de-stablize Windows because Windows is popular and they have no f*cking life
and are into getting the 5 minutes of fame on the news station and all. That
is because they are so fucked up that they think they should fuck everyone
else over because they have a problem (girlfriend left the asshole or they
lost their job because they were a fuck up or whatever. THEY are the ones
you should blame. Otherwise, it is likely the user themselves to blame.
Since most computer problems have stemmed from users who do not know what
they are doing. Now, Windows can be made better but people shouldn't be
trying to fuck other people's lives over by making these viruses to begin
with. It is plain vandalism of the computer and you know, - I met one of
these assholes, I would shove my foot up their asses. There are people who
create these programs and test them in simulation networks which are
isolated from the WHOLE internet itself. These are network security
specialists so if they have a noble cause then join a network security
consulting business and do what Kevin Mitnick did after he was allowed to
use computers again.  It is these assholes (often teenagers who got grounded
or a bad grade from their teachers or whatever) who do these destructive
acts which I would love to see just get shot and it be over. No questions
asked. But they are the ones that makes trouble the lives of users. The web
should be cleaned up.

Now, if it is not a virus, a good chance is that it is a result of actions
taken by the user (knowingly or not knowingly).

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...

> Dave Ross wrote:
> |When asked how this is different from the two separate graphics systems
> |in the 128, you came back with a comment that the 128 did it twenty
> |years ago.  When asked how that is relevant to the discussion, you try
> |to bring the price of a used 128 into it!
> |
> |Can you answer with anything besides a red herring?
>
> Are you saying that the standard was neither met nor set when the
> C-128 came out with the two-monitor ability in 1985 (roughly)?  Or
> are you saying that nobody knew about this ability, and therefore
> there was no standard to be observed?
>
> I really don't understand what the thrust of your argument is.  Are
> you quibbling about the exact month, not just year, this happened?
>
> What part about the C-128 having "set the standard in 1985" do you not
> understand?

The IBM XT was introduced, IIRC, in 1983.  I don't know how long it took for
users to discover that it could be used with two video cards, but it seems
reasonable to assume that it had been done by 1985.

> That you admit the PC couldn't do it until 1991 seems to
> prove my point.

He didn't say that the PC couldn't do it until 1991.  He said that he did not
see any commercial software that would display two different screens on two
monitors until 1991.  I have never seen any commercial software for the C128
that uses both monitor outputs simultaneously for different displays.  I
could say that seems to prove Dave's point... but I won't be that tacky.
>:-)

> Just because most people in the year 2004 use the PC
> as though it were a glorified teletype machine

As much as you like to "waffle" you might make a good politician...

> does nothing to disprove
> the point I made.

Did you make a point?  You were so busy sidestepping each issue that I didn't
notice you making any points.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Watch yourself, or your
reality check will bounce!

"Kelli Halliburton" <kelli217@crosswinds.not> wrote ...

> Matthew Montchalin wrote:
>> Do you really think that most people program the PC from assembly
>> language, or from some kind of high level application that muddies
>> the waters and prevents the processor from executing at its optimum
>> level?
>
> Do you really think?
>
> Back under the bridge with you!

I think I see Big Billy Goat Gruff coming down the path.  Quick Matthew!
Hide!    :-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

UFO's are real.
It's the Air Force that doesn't exist!

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404071711190.4043-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...

> What is wrong with two mouses and two keyboards?
>
> You could have one person fixing the code on the one side while the
> other person is moving his mouse and causing all kinds of problems
> on the other?

As a programmer who have worked with such setups, I have found it to be
sometime troublesome. In such case, we talk about a Multi-User system and
personally speaking, I would not want someone working on the exact same file
that I am working on at the same time when programming. I would send a copy
in a network shared folder and have a copy on a local "not-shared" folder
(folder = directory) so that what the other individual is working on is not
overwriting what I worked on. Usually there is a programmer and a debugger.
The debugger works on a file that the programmer had worked on but not the
file that the programmer is currently working on. You see, I like 2 screens
for myself as I often would have one screen for what I am working on and the
other screen having a site that provides information. Maybe an email, maybe
a message on a newsgroup or mail-list that another "remote programmer" has
given tips on so I can be typing code that he suggested on one screen and
glance over to the other screen to see what code snippet he suggested.
Bouncing through windows do tend to be troublesome. I found it useful.

I found using two screens useful when I was working on PHP code and so forth
but pressing those hot keys (keyboard shortcuts) doesn't always help when I
am using a site like www.php.net and looking over a tutorial with some code
snippet and utilizing it in a PHP project that I am working on. Copying over
certain code snippets (and making any neccassary adjustments) - I rather
have two screens so I don't have to keep flipping windows. You see, I find
it to ease up the coding. Sometimes having two computers side by side -
helps too. A dual screen Desktop and a nearby laptop can make all the
difference. For me the advantage of the second KB & Mouse comes from my
second computer. For example - I have a desktop and a laptop. I have two
monitors hooked upto the desktop and a laptop to the side. I also would have
a chair that can swivel and a Printer near buy.

It really benefits me to do this - this way. I can be test running the
program or file in one screen and working on the code in the other and have
my other computer to browse the web and getting info. I have a network setup
as well.

"Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message
news:Wj1dc.11519$bd4.32@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

> The IBM XT was introduced, IIRC, in 1983.  I don't know how long it took
for
> users to discover that it could be used with two video cards, but it seems
> reasonable to assume that it had been done by 1985.
>
> He didn't say that the PC couldn't do it until 1991.  He said that he did
not
> see any commercial software that would display two different screens on
two
> monitors until 1991.  I have never seen any commercial software for the
C128
> that uses both monitor outputs simultaneously for different displays.  I
> could say that seems to prove Dave's point... but I won't be that tacky.
> >:-)

Actually I seen a few programs that used both the VIC-II and the VDC output
and if you hooked up the VIC-II output to a 1702 and the VDC output to the
1902(A) or like monitors. I seen programs that mostly used 80cols. and use
40col. for the bitmap graphics but not any program that made a "SERIOUS" and
really "Practical" use of both. Even Risen from Oblivion uses both but the
bandwidth to simultaneous drive both would often stress the 8502 and things
just go slow.

> As much as you like to "waffle" you might make a good politician...
>
> Did you make a point?  You were so busy sidestepping each issue that I
didn't
> notice you making any points.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...

> I can't keep my eye on him continuously, but I am fairly sure that he
> had only managed to put one CD into the CD tray.  He is an expert mouse
> clicking kind of person, it seems like second nature to him.  I keep
> telling him that Windows is far more likely to crash if he clicks it
> fast than if he clicks it slow, so maybe that was why we ended up with
> an "ILLEGAL FREQUENCY" message?

Maybe your brother's laptop is a telepathic laptop.  And it detected an
illegal frequency in your thought patterns.  Could happen you know,
especially if the government had infected his computer, as you indicated may
have happened in an earlier post.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

It looks like your gene
pool could use a filter!

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...

> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
> |
> |Have you tried running a memory check program?
>
> Has Microsoft tried writing an OS that actually works?

Sidestepping again?  Have you tried answering a question?

The question was, "Have you tried running a memory check program?"
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Global warming is caused by the sun.

Matthew Montchalin wrote:

> I really don't understand what the thrust of your argument is.  Are
> you quibbling about the exact month, not just year, this happened?

Yes, Matthew.  That is exactly what I want.  Not just down to the month, 
though.  I want the exact hour, minute, and second it happened.

Here, let me make it simple for you:

MM: It's a pity that PC's need extra video cards to support dual displays

DR: The 128 has two independent graphics chips that are accessed in 
different ways.  How is this different than having multiple video cards?

MM: The 128 did it 20 years ago.

DR: That doesn't explain the difference.

MM: The 128 did it 20 years ago and you can buy a 128 for $20.

DR: Those points are correct, but that still doesn't explain how the 
setup in the 128 is different than having two video cards.

MM: Ah ha!  You admit that PCs didn't use dual displays until the 90's, 
which proves my point.

I gotta admit, Matthew.  You may be just a troll, but at least you're an 
entertaining one.

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Sam Gillett wrote:
|> |Have you tried running a memory check program?
|>
|> Has Microsoft tried writing an OS that actually works?
|
|Sidestepping again?  Have you tried answering a question?
|
|The question was, "Have you tried running a memory check program?"

At no time have I ever claimed to know how a PC works, or which
secret diagnostics programs should be used to fix it when it
crashes.  Remember, when it comes to a PC, I am a mere Joe Average
with no understanding WHY the darn thing crashes so much.

Which memory "check" program should I have tried?  And why doesn't
Windows run it automatically, seeing how often the thing crashes?

Sam Gillett wrote:
|> What part about the C-128 having "set the standard in 1985" do you not
|> understand?
|
|The IBM XT was introduced, IIRC, in 1983.  I don't know how long it took
|for users to discover that it could be used with two video cards, but it
|seems reasonable to assume that it had been done by 1985.

Um, that's amazing to find out!

Which BIOS call allows data to be addressed on one graphics card, and
which BIOS call allows data to be addressed on the other?

Dave Ross wrote:
|> I really don't understand what the thrust of your argument is.  Are
|> you quibbling about the exact month, not just year, this happened?
|
|Yes, Matthew.  That is exactly what I want.  Not just down to the month,
|though.  I want the exact hour, minute, and second it happened.
|
|Here, let me make it simple for you:
|
|MM: It's a pity that PC's need extra video cards to support dual displays

You'll have to agree at this point.

|DR: The 128 has two independent graphics chips that are accessed in
|different ways.  How is this different than having multiple video cards?

The C-128 when it came out, offered us two video outs (three if you
include that crazy RF modulator thing).

|MM: The 128 did it 20 years ago.
|
|DR: That doesn't explain the difference.

The difference in 1985, or the difference in 2004?  That the PC has
had nearly 20 years to work with the concept (for all intents and
purposes, apparently borrowed from the C-128, and not the XT, because
the C-128 is significantly more stable, and a superior platform to
work on) causes me a great deal of surprise that consumers in today's
Microsoft world are not offered a 'bundled' deal with two monitors,
and one whiz-bang "be all, do all" software collection that utilizes
both.

|MM: The 128 did it 20 years ago and you can buy a 128 for $20.
|
|DR: Those points are correct, but that still doesn't explain how the
|setup in the 128 is different than having two video cards.

The 128 was different from most PC computers when it came out, do
you not agree?  And yet it has taken 20 years for the PC to come
close to the C-128's dual monitor concept (ignoring the XT, which
apparently never made much of a splash, seeing as how I had never
heard of it).

||> |Have you tried running a memory check program?
||>
||> Has Microsoft tried writing an OS that actually works?
||
||Sidestepping again?  Have you tried answering a question?
||
||The question was, "Have you tried running a memory check program?"
|
|At no time have I ever claimed to know how a PC works, or which
|secret diagnostics programs should be used to fix it when it
|crashes.  Remember, when it comes to a PC, I am a mere Joe Average
|with no understanding WHY the darn thing crashes so much.

I can be expected, I suppose, to think that all computers run
pretty much the same way.  That when they crash, you stand a
fair chance of recovering SOMETHING by generating an interrupt,
whether it is by tapping the RESTORE key on the C-64/128 or
the CTRL ALT DEL combination on the PC.  There ought to be a
stack somewhere - God knows where - that I can look at, and
fathom some kind of Greater Truth just by finding it and looking
at it.  Maybe the PC's memory architecture is at fault?  Could
it be related to the data/memory segment register, or whatever
you call it?

The third is a mirror of the VIC-II. We are talking about distint video
outputs with independent displays not mirrors. I can have 32 output coming
off the VIC-II if I wanted to but they all be the same video. The RF out is
just a Y-Split of the main video going out the Composite video and is no
different. I could have done that with the PC just by Y-Splitting the 9 pin
CGA connector to my hearts content or until the signal degrades too much.
You see, I am not entirely all that worried or caring. What we really are
talking about is distinct video stream with the ability to display different
things. Not just mirror the same thing.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404072040500.17540-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...

> You'll have to agree at this point.
>
> The C-128 when it came out, offered us two video outs (three if you
> include that crazy RF modulator thing).
>
> The difference in 1985, or the difference in 2004?  That the PC has
> had nearly 20 years to work with the concept (for all intents and
> purposes, apparently borrowed from the C-128, and not the XT, because
> the C-128 is significantly more stable, and a superior platform to
> work on) causes me a great deal of surprise that consumers in today's
> Microsoft world are not offered a 'bundled' deal with two monitors,
> and one whiz-bang "be all, do all" software collection that utilizes
> both.

Um, Matthew, some PCs do indeed come equipped with such video cards. The
monitors are sold separately but remember EVEN Commodore didn't bundle two
monitors. It is just a given that if you had a TV or a 1702 (for example)
and you bought an C-128 compatible RGB (80col.) monitor like the 1902A then
you got the option to hook up the VIC-II video out to the 1702 and the 80col
VDC video to the 1902A. It was an option on the user not bundled by
Commodore. In fact Commodore rarely bundled the monitors themselves. The
dealers may make a special deal but Commodore NEVER bundled two monitors.
The option to output two distinct video to two distinct monitors is an
option of the user buying the PC and buying two monitors. I just have to buy
an additional monitor if I want two monitors. If I wanted to buy a system
with two monitors, I would simply the machine and buy the two monitors (or
LCD screens).

> The 128 was different from most PC computers when it came out, do
> you not agree?  And yet it has taken 20 years for the PC to come
> close to the C-128's dual monitor concept (ignoring the XT, which
> apparently never made much of a splash, seeing as how I had never
> heard of it).

I heard of the XT. It was the predecessor of the AT.

Rick Balkins wrote:
|> What is wrong with two mouses and two keyboards?
|>
|> You could have one person fixing the code on the one side while the
|> other person is moving his mouse and causing all kinds of problems
|> on the other?
|
|As a programmer who have worked with such setups, I have found it to be
|sometime troublesome.

Do you mean that you can't trust anyone to help you program?  Are you
suggesting that a helping hand tends to get in the way?  Too many cooks
spoil the broth?  If you stick your finger in a rabbit hutch, the rabbits
nip at your finger?

|In such case, we talk about a Multi-User system and personally speaking,
|I would not want someone working on the exact same file that I am
|working on at the same time when programming.

No, I was thinking of working on something that is memory resident,
it doesn't turn into a file until you save it back to your disk drive.

|I would send a copy in a network shared folder and have a copy on a
|local "not-shared" folder (folder = directory) so that what the other
|individual is working on is not overwriting what I worked on.

You don't trust him enough to edit stuff that is memory-resident, and
which is being displayed to your screen (in a slightly different way
than it is displayed to yours)?

|Usually there is a programmer and a debugger.

Ah, but I am suggesting a situation where there are two that manipulate
memory in a roughly simultaneous - parallel, if you will - manner.

|The debugger works on a file that the programmer had worked on but
|not the file that the programmer is currently working on.

Why not be adventurous, and let both people modify memory simultaneously?

Or is there going to be some kind of 'contention' for resources?

|You see, I like 2 screens for myself as I often would have one screen
|for what I am working on and the other screen having a site that
|provides information. Maybe an email, maybe a message on a newsgroup
|or mail-list that another "remote programmer" has given tips on so I
|can be typing code that he suggested on one screen and glance over to
|the other screen to see what code snippet he suggested.

But that sort of an arrangement causes me to shrivel up and grow pale;
I am reduced by the idea that there is no way to receive the information
faster - by having it all memory resident, and the OS could be managing
both screens simultaneously, updating them with every clock cycle.  Yet,
as I am reduced by the spectre of staying the same with a single-monitor
environment, you are consumed with the fervor of maintaining it.  Can you
not depart from the familiar, and try out something new?

|Bouncing through windows do tend to be troublesome. I found it useful.

I wonder how Bill Gates secretly relates to his own creation?  I've met
him once.  Oh, I should have asked him when I had the chance.

|I found using two screens useful when I was working on PHP code and
|so forth but pressing those hot keys (keyboard shortcuts) doesn't always
|help when I am using a site like www.php.net and looking over a tutorial
|with some code snippet and utilizing it in a PHP project that I am
|working on. Copying over certain code snippets (and making any neccassary
|adjustments) - I rather have two screens so I don't have to keep flipping
|windows.

Windows could flip just as quickly if you had two video signals, and
delivered one of the signals to an external monitor.

|You see, I find it to ease up the coding. Sometimes having two computers
|side by side - helps too. A dual screen Desktop and a nearby laptop can
|make all the difference.

hmmmm

|For me the advantage of the second KB & Mouse comes from my second
|computer. For example - I have a desktop and a laptop. I have two
|monitors hooked upto the desktop and a laptop to the side. I also
|would have a chair that can swivel and a Printer near buy.

Ah, I have had that opportunity, and took it.

|It really benefits me to do this - this way. I can be test running
|the program or file in one screen and working on the code in the
|other and have my other computer to browse the web and getting info.

Browsing the web isn't all it's made out to be.  But the cable thing
tends to help out on speed quite a bit.

|I have a network setup as well.

Very good.

Rick Balkins wrote:
|The third is a mirror of the VIC-II. We are talking about distint video
|outputs with independent displays not mirrors. I can have 32 output coming
|off the VIC-II if I wanted to but they all be the same video. The RF out is
|just a Y-Split of the main video going out the Composite video and is no
|different. I could have done that with the PC just by Y-Splitting the 9 pin
|CGA connector to my hearts content or until the signal degrades too much.
|You see, I am not entirely all that worried or caring. What we really are
|talking about is distinct video stream with the ability to display different
|things. Not just mirror the same thing.
|
|"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
|news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404072040500.17540-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
|
|> You'll have to agree at this point.
|>
|> The C-128 when it came out, offered us two video outs (three if you
|> include that crazy RF modulator thing).
|>
|> The difference in 1985, or the difference in 2004?  That the PC has
|> had nearly 20 years to work with the concept (for all intents and
|> purposes, apparently borrowed from the C-128, and not the XT, because
|> the C-128 is significantly more stable, and a superior platform to
|> work on) causes me a great deal of surprise that consumers in today's
|> Microsoft world are not offered a 'bundled' deal with two monitors,
|> and one whiz-bang "be all, do all" software collection that utilizes
|> both.
|
|Um, Matthew, some PCs do indeed come equipped with such video cards.

But not at a price that is 'competitive.'  (But to be fair, any
software that drives two video cards properly, ought to cost a
pretty penny.)

Now, how much do you think software would cost for the CommodoreOne if
the CommodoreOne came with a dual video out mode?  Of course, it probably
isn't enough to recoup the hours invested in developing it, but still...

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404072118300.17540-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...

> Do you mean that you can't trust anyone to help you program?

Not exactly. I just don't think it is efficient for two developers to be
writing and modifying the "exact" same file at the exact same time. You see,
I would first work on File 1 and second developer would finish anywork that
I left for him the previous night (last file from last night) to debug and
all and then I finish File 1 and pass it on the the helper to debug and test
File 1 and I move on to File 2 (for today).

> Are you suggesting that a helping hand tends to get in the way?

They can be. It can compromise the data I write or he writes. I save and
then he saves and overwrites. You see, I would be writing the code and the
beta tester would test the file and all. It all depends on what is to be
done. I just don't want the possibility of lossing a days work because of a
fuck up somewhere. I want to be in control of what I am working on and let
the tester work on things that I have ready for him. I may interrupt him (if
he isn't working on something too critical for him to be disturbed) if he
can answe a question I may have but hey it isn't about disturbing him for no
reason. As a developer, you would want to be self-reliant and also be able
to coordinate with a group. But the group needs to work on different things
of a project. Like building a custom bike. Ok, one person may be spray
painting the fender and I be fabricating parts and another working other
things. But not everybody in the group is fucking around with a light bulb.
Shit man, how many men does it take to install a light. Geez, it's like
having everyone in a car factory working on installing a light bulb in one
of those florescent lights. Geez, shouldn't most of the people be working in
an assembly line fashion producing the cars ? I am talking about an assembly
line in terms of software development. Ok, multiple programmers can be worki
ng on different sections of a game but that would be multiple files. See, in
a multiple file game - I would be working on the intro and the extro and the
graphics and sound and another developer working on first 3 levels and
another working on the second three levels and another working on the last 4
levels. (Here is an example) Then after the developers make the beta then we
have beta testers to debug and we work together to fix any bugs. You see -
its called organizing the task so that not everybody is working all on the
same thing. Especially a small part that should be done by one. Before all
this, we would work and agree out how we would go through each level and
transition to each level.

> Too many cooks spoil the broth?

To many people working on a lightbulb would make it inefficient and could
increase the possibility of destroying the lightbulb.

> If you stick your finger in a rabbit hutch, the rabbits nip at your
finger?

> No, I was thinking of working on something that is memory resident,
> it doesn't turn into a file until you save it back to your disk drive.

How many instances of the same program be in memory ???? For each user ????
Then we save each instance into same file using the same filename ????

> You don't trust him enough to edit stuff that is memory-resident, and
> which is being displayed to your screen (in a slightly different way
> than it is displayed to yours)?

Ok, read the part above - How many instances of the same program in memory
???? For each user ???? Then we save each instance into the same file using
the same filename ????

> Ah, but I am suggesting a situation where there are two that manipulate
> memory in a roughly simultaneous - parallel, if you will - manner.

Ok, is that mirror of the same code and then save each mirror into the same
file ????

> Why not be adventurous, and let both people modify memory simultaneously?
>
> Or is there going to be some kind of 'contention' for resources?

Depends. If we have multiple instances of the "same" program mirrored for
each user and each user saved there code using the same filename - what
would happen to the final file ???? Or are you talking about a timeslice
cycling situation.

> But that sort of an arrangement causes me to shrivel up and grow pale;
> I am reduced by the idea that there is no way to receive the information
> faster - by having it all memory resident, and the OS could be managing
> both screens simultaneously, updating them with every clock cycle.  Yet,
> as I am reduced by the spectre of staying the same with a single-monitor
> environment, you are consumed with the fervor of maintaining it.  Can you
> not depart from the familiar, and try out something new?
>
> I wonder how Bill Gates secretly relates to his own creation?  I've met
> him once.  Oh, I should have asked him when I had the chance.
>
> Windows could flip just as quickly if you had two video signals, and
> delivered one of the signals to an external monitor.
>
> hmmmm

When I don't have to flip through the different Windows and just have the
stuff that I want to see without having to stop programming, flip which
window is up on top and read then flip again which window I want on top. You
see, I would not have to flip between the window in which I am programming
in with the window that is displaying the website with the info I want.
Think in an organize way, you will work more efficiently. Have things where
I want them so I don't have to move the mouse and pressing buttons or using
special keyboard shortcuts. I would be much quicker just glancing over
between one screen that is only a 4-6 inches apart from each other. (Enough
so the magnetic fields won't possibly cause noticable distortion.)

> Ah, I have had that opportunity, and took it.
>
> Browsing the web isn't all it's made out to be.  But the cable thing
> tends to help out on speed quite a bit.

Yeah, yeah but I do find useful info on the web. Online programming
tutorials in PHP was helpful. Especially when I could be reading it by just
glancing over to the screen with it displayed and read the important stuff
while I am programming. Yes - the cable modem does make it significantly
faster.

> |I have a network setup as well.
>
> Very good.

An actual network but (peer to peer - no centralized server).

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404072231280.25263-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...

> But not at a price that is 'competitive.'  (But to be fair, any
> software that drives two video cards properly, ought to cost a
> pretty penny.)
>
> Now, how much do you think software would cost for the CommodoreOne if
> the CommodoreOne came with a dual video out mode?  Of course, it probably
> isn't enough to recoup the hours invested in developing it, but still...

$20 can be done but this depends on what I want to do and how much I decide
to charge.

I really look at how much the media cost and make a fair comparison. $20
compared to what I would charge $10.

Rick Balkins wrote:
> 

[...]

>>
>>Sheeeeesh, you Windows apologists blame everything on the user.  There
>>are far more crappy Windows machines out there than you guys admit.
> 
> 
> Ok, it may not be your fault but something your brother did. (knowingly or
> not knowingly)
> 

That's one of the important differences between Windows and some other 
systems. It does many things behind the back of the "unknowing user". 
True. It happens with other systems too but windows is the clear leader 
here.

[...]

> 99.99% of problems in PCs have some level of a user action involvement.

Sure! If there were no users at all then only 0.01% windows machines 
would go down... ;-)

The problem is that the f...n' users are always messing around this 
wonderful piece of code and they don't want to go away. Do they?

Generally speaking no other OS required so much care and babysitting as 
all Windows versions until "2000". And don't tell me it isn't true 
unless you go at least the same path and experiences with _various_ 
systems as I did. Windows 2000 still requires a lot of care but here I 
believe MacOS 8.x and 9.x beats it hands down in defficiencies.


-- 
Older Geek (you know who ;-) : The computers themselves are completely 
asexual. Neither straight nor gay. Like a perfect monk, they never feel 
a desire to copulate...

Younger Geek: How come so many Windows systems get f..ked every day then?!

Rick Balkins wrote:
|> But not at a price that is 'competitive.'  (But to be fair, any
|> software that drives two video cards properly, ought to cost a
|> pretty penny.)
|>
|> Now, how much do you think software would cost for the CommodoreOne
|> if the CommodoreOne came with a dual video out mode?  Of course, it
|> probably isn't enough to recoup the hours invested in developing it,
|> but still...
|
|$20 can be done but this depends on what I want to do and how much
|I decide to charge.

Twenty dollars sounds like you are trying to cut into somebody else's
market.  But if you had sole control over the market, wouldn't you
be more likely to ask for $295?

|I really look at how much the media cost and make a fair comparison.
|$20 compared to what I would charge $10.

I think that is way too low.

Rick Balkins wrote:
|> Why not be adventurous, and let both people modify memory simultaneously?
|>
|> Or is there going to be some kind of 'contention' for resources?
|
|Depends.

Maybe.

|If we have multiple instances of the "same" program mirrored for each
|user and each user saved there code using the same filename - what
|would happen to the final file ????

You just said that the code was saved onto the disk drive with one
filename.  So that means that the next time you load it back from
the disk drive, you would have to type the same filename.

|Or are you talking about a timeslice cycling situation.

Well, if the 65816-like microprocessor executes only one instruction
at a time, then the OS is going to have to spend some of its time
performing basic background chores.  Like maintaining two different
keyboard queues - one for each keyboard.  Remember, we were talking
about two keyboards.  (Or at least two mouses, for goodness sake.)

You might want to have a completely different Kernal if you are
entertaining scanning two keyboard queues.  And you might as well
have two different charactger 'output' routines.  It won't do to
have a single $ffd2 when you are going to want to update either of
two screens.

Rick Balkins wrote:
|> Do you mean that you can't trust anyone to help you program?
|
|Not exactly. I just don't think it is efficient for two developers to be
|writing and modifying the "exact" same file at the exact same time.

In a teamwork situation, wouldn't their work project be saved all at
once, under one filename?  But I can see the value in allowing each
programmer a chance to save a few blocks in specific tracks and sectors
(or SCSI addresses), so they have something similar to a "scratch pad"
to jot down their thoughts.

|You see, I would first work on File 1 and second developer would finish
|anywork that I left for him the previous night (last file from last
|night) to debug and all and then I finish File 1 and pass it on the the
|helper to debug and test File 1 and I move on to File 2 (for today).

What if it is a graphics program, and they are both artists?  Then they
would probably want to work simultaneously, and not divvy up their work
into two separate files.

|> Are you suggesting that a helping hand tends to get in the way?
|
|They can be. It can compromise the data I write or he writes.

Yet the concept underlying parallel processing expects the data to be
fairly fuzzy.  That, despite the fuzziness, if two or more people work
on a range of memory, work gets done that much faster.

|I save and then he saves and overwrites.

Not if they have specific tracks and sectors they can do their own
thing to.  But the overall 'project' could be stored under one filename.

   <snip>

|> Too many cooks spoil the broth?
|
|To many people working on a lightbulb would make it inefficient and could
|increase the possibility of destroying the lightbulb.

Yeah, that is possible, if they are TRYING to bring the system down,
but if they are cooperating and trying to get a job done, then it
stays up.

|> If you stick your finger in a rabbit hutch, the rabbits nip at your
|> finger?

This is deeper than we may first realize.

|> No, I was thinking of working on something that is memory resident,
|> it doesn't turn into a file until you save it back to your disk drive.
|
|How many instances of the same program be in memory ????

In a 65816-like system, each user could have 64K, a nice, nifty little
segment of memory.  If an area is 'common' to either of them, that could
be 64K too.

|For each user ????

Yes.

|Then we save each instance into same file using the same filename ????

Yes, just one filename for the whole thing, but we could let users
have their own private tracks and sectors, if that proves fruitful.

Let's suppose they are doing some graphics adjustments.  'Retouching'
in other words.  Let's say this super-whizbang picture is four-planed,
and each plane takes up 64K.  We can also assume that it is a fully
expanded 65816-like system with 256 'banks' of 64K, so we can even flip
some of these bitplanes around (good for fixing up mistakes, we can
recover what we just flipped out).

The only real problem is contention for resources.  Person A wants to
save way too many 'copies' of his bit-plane in some other bank of
memory and Person B could tell him to cut it out.  Or the OS could
flag the memory-deprived individual of a potential resource theft
and beep a few times.

Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
> |> |> In the last five years, it is almost always a freeze.
> |> |
> |> |Freezing isn't caused by Windows, it's caused by your PC.
> |>
> |> A typical diagnostics window indicates a host of problems, but it's
> |> usually either a "page fault" or "illegal instruction."
> |
> |Have you tried running a memory check program?
> 
> Has Microsoft tried writing an OS that actually works?
> 
You can check your hardware without Microsoft's OS. Doing it won't harm.

Rick Balkins wrote:


>>What is wrong with two mouses and two keyboards?
>>
>>You could have one person fixing the code on the one side while the
>>other person is moving his mouse and causing all kinds of problems
>>on the other?
> 
> 
> As a programmer who have worked with such setups, I have found it to be
> sometime troublesome. In such case, we talk about a Multi-User system and
> personally speaking, I would not want someone working on the exact same file
> that I am working on at the same time when programming.

I don't know what setups you have used but there are some tools, which 
allow this approach mostly painless.

One of them is available under:

http://www.codingmonkeys.de/subethaedit/

Combined with the "RendezVous" configuration... I think you might want 
to reconsider your opinion after gathering some experience with those.

Sam Gillett wrote:
[...]

>>
>>What part about the C-128 having "set the standard in 1985" do you not
>>understand?
> 
> The IBM XT was introduced, IIRC, in 1983.  I don't know how long it took for
> users to discover that it could be used with two video cards, but it seems
> reasonable to assume that it had been done by 1985.

They tried (including the undersigned) but before the PCI era there were 
two things, which prevented successful setups:

1) the PC-Interrupt roulette was barely to win
2) Most popular MDA/HGC cards didn't like any other on the bus

Of course then, there was still the inexistent software support for 
practically inexistend "dual-head" hardware setups.

I wouldn't call the early trials a true possibility. This in practice 
means that only the advent of PCI bus allowed more than one display on 
the generic pc. That certainly didn't happen in 1985.

P.

Matthew Montchalin wrote:

> Sam Gillett wrote:
> |> What part about the C-128 having "set the standard in 1985" do you not
> |> understand?
> |
> |The IBM XT was introduced, IIRC, in 1983.  I don't know how long it took
> |for users to discover that it could be used with two video cards, but it
> |seems reasonable to assume that it had been done by 1985.
> 
> Um, that's amazing to find out!
> 
> Which BIOS call allows data to be addressed on one graphics card, and
> which BIOS call allows data to be addressed on the other?
> 

One had to bash the hardware... you would like it ;-)

Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@oregonvos.net> wrote:

> had nearly 20 years to work with the concept (for all intents and
> purposes, apparently borrowed from the C-128, and not the XT, because
> the C-128 is significantly more stable, and a superior platform to
> work on) 

Should I dismiss this as yet another anti-PC rant or can you actually
back your claim up with something specific? What problems have you
had working with an XT?

> The 128 was different from most PC computers when it came out, do
> you not agree?  And yet it has taken 20 years for the PC to come
> close to the C-128's dual monitor concept (ignoring the XT, which
> apparently never made much of a splash, seeing as how I had never
> heard of it).

You know, the world does not revolve around you. Dismissing the dual
display capability of the IBM PC just because you hadn't heard of it is
simply too convenient. Just admit that you were wrong. 

I suspect a lot of people were not aware of this capability, but that's 
because the software that took advantage of a secondary display 
was rather specialized - Debuggers (Microsoft's Codeview, Borland's Turbo 
Debugger), CAD software, a task switcher as someone else in this thread 
has mentioned, etc. Probably not a lot of applications, but was the 
situation any different on the C128? How many C128 applications use both 
displays simultaneously? Let's see a list.

And it wasn't just the XT. It was every PC since the XT. This explains
why monochrome graphic adapters were still available for purchase long 
after VGA cards became commonplace. It's only now with the lack of ISA 
slots on modern motherboards that you can no longer run a second card 
this way (but you can use an extra PCI card instead of course).


Regards,

Laust

Matthew Montchalin wrote:


> |Um, Matthew, some PCs do indeed come equipped with such video cards.
> 
> But not at a price that is 'competitive.'  (But to be fair, any
> software that drives two video cards properly, ought to cost a
> pretty penny.)

The software to do it these days is the OS. Then - if you talk "Windows" 
- it costs money. If you talk "MacOS" it still costs money. If you talk 
"GNU/xxxBSD" or "GNU/Linux" - it doesn't cost anything but time to set 
things up". Your choice.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Rick Balkins wrote:

> > The same goes for poorly written Windows code which tries to grab
> > memory already in use, fails to release memory tio the system upon
> > closure, or "cheats" by not *exactly* following windows API's.  There
> > are a lot of lazy or, unskilled or incompetent programmers out there
> > in Windows land.  The bad thing about code like that is that it often
> > screws up a multitasking system in such a subtle way that the the
> > damage doesn't hit immediately.  The system is stable until another
> > program reaches the area of memory affected by the now unloaded bad
> > program.  (Could take hours or days or never ata all).  Thus people
> > often blame Windows  because they can't immediately pin the bug on the
> > actual culprit.  Bad code in DOS or on a C-64 (single-tasking) system
> > is immediately apparent.  Bootom line: Bad code in a multitasking
> > system like windows can plant a time-bomb for a crash.
> >
> > Sorry if I went off on a tangent.  <g>
>
> Good explanation. Bad code is derived from bad programmers and can put a
> wrench in the works for any system. Don't follow the rules and you risk
> "destablizing" the OS / computer and crashes occur.

Bullshit. If your app takes down the OS it *is* the OS' fault.

-- 
Michael

Linux puffin 2.2.22-puffin #1 Sat Mar 15 19:50:31 CET 2003 i486 unknown

"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message
news:40751de3@news.inet.com.pl...

> That's one of the important differences between Windows and some other
> systems. It does many things behind the back of the "unknowing user".
> True. It happens with other systems too but windows is the clear leader
> here.

It is true things go on but all that generally goes on are stuff that is the
OS itself or apps that are configured to start when Windows starts up or
when there is a scheduled task like a virus scan being scheduled so there is
a little program running all the time to check the time and if the time
reaches that point (it kick starts the AntiVirus).

I used Windows 3.1,3.11,3.11 for Workgroups, Windows 95, 98 & 98SE, (worked
with ME), and worked with Windows XP. I worked with several NTs in the past.
It isn't things that goes on that you could not know. Just learn what file
is what and what purpose they are for. For the most part, Windows is
User-Action Event-Driven. Sure it has some things running in the background
like the clock and the OS and in somecases the Real Time AntiVirus
protection system. Are they bad to be running ???? Everything running in the
background can be explained and connected to what you have installed (or
some case - some of the factory installed software). If it isn't something
stemming from that and is a wild program starting up (you better get that
Antivirus AND Adware/Spyware Scanning and Removing software [Adaware or
whare] and check it out).

> [...]
>
> > 99.99% of problems in PCs have some level of a user action involvement.
>
> Sure! If there were no users at all then only 0.01% windows machines
> would go down... ;-)

Yes and No. Given 99.99% of the problems during a whole year is often
stemming from users who don't know what they are doing and often they have
to bring their computer to computer repair techs all the time. You see, even
though most of the computer literate people who really know how to use and
run a computer don't have crashes even for 9 months without a problem. You
see where they are the minority given 500,000,000 Windows computer users -
they are only about 5 million of the 500 Million. About a realistic figure
as only a small few of the given population go to college and and smaller
percentage learn to use computers and an even smaller percentage learn how
to properly use and setup computers and fully understand what is going on
inside.

> The problem is that the f...n' users are always messing around this
> wonderful piece of code and they don't want to go away. Do they?
>
> Generally speaking no other OS required so much care and babysitting as
> all Windows versions until "2000". And don't tell me it isn't true
> unless you go at least the same path and experiences with _various_
> systems as I did. Windows 2000 still requires a lot of care but here I
> believe MacOS 8.x and 9.x beats it hands down in defficiencies.

Well, it is also the most attacked OS because the assholes who don't have a
life and just want to f*ck people over because their life is so fucked up -
(the "hackers" - in terms that the media uses) just attack the most popular
OS because of Bill Gates and Microsoft makes the widest used OS in the world
so these jackasses would want to attack the biggist common denominator of
people just to get their 5 minutes of fame. Reason there is few viruses for
Amiga,Commodore and even Linux is because only a small number of people are
even writing viruses for them. Not because of stability or at least
necassarily. The art of making viruses is to attack from the weakest point
and every OS has a weak point. Now how many people bother to exploit Linux's
weak points. Not many because Linux represents the small guys and most of
these "hackers" just don't like Microsoft because they have such a market
share.  So what would it take to take down the Microsoft Wall. (Something
better than viruses)

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404080447210.26755-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...

> In a teamwork situation, wouldn't their work project be saved all at
> once, under one filename?  But I can see the value in allowing each
> programmer a chance to save a few blocks in specific tracks and sectors
> (or SCSI addresses), so they have something similar to a "scratch pad"
> to jot down their thoughts.

Ok, we are talking about making adjustments to the same file but typically
you mirror a copy of the program to RAM for each user which means if there
is 5 users for example - there is 5 copies which would be independently
modified in RAM in each user's section of RAM and then they all save it back
to the same file on the Hard Disk. Um doesn't that cause the file to be
essentially erased and rewritten and the last user to save their work would
be the only content that would be in the end and therefore the other 4
user's work was useless ???? We would have to make sure that you add only
the new stuff and put it into place. Or only one copy is mirrored to RAM and
each user's screen is updated during their timeslice and they input their
work then to the same work in their own "window". Basically what they do
during their timeslice at the end of the timeslice is put into the actual
content. Like in a chatroom. Of course things would have to be placed not
linearly but where in the file it is placed. This can make things
complicated but may be done but people need to really be working together.

> What if it is a graphics program, and they are both artists?  Then they
> would probably want to work simultaneously, and not divvy up their work
> into two separate files.

Well, perhaps we got something.

> Yet the concept underlying parallel processing expects the data to be
> fairly fuzzy.  That, despite the fuzziness, if two or more people work
> on a range of memory, work gets done that much faster.
>
> |I save and then he saves and overwrites.
>
> Not if they have specific tracks and sectors they can do their own
> thing to.  But the overall 'project' could be stored under one filename.
>
>    <snip>
>
> |> Too many cooks spoil the broth?
> |
> |To many people working on a lightbulb would make it inefficient and could
> |increase the possibility of destroying the lightbulb.
>
> Yeah, that is possible, if they are TRYING to bring the system down,
> but if they are cooperating and trying to get a job done, then it
> stays up.
>
> |> If you stick your finger in a rabbit hutch, the rabbits nip at your
> |> finger?
>
> This is deeper than we may first realize.
>
> |> No, I was thinking of working on something that is memory resident,
> |> it doesn't turn into a file until you save it back to your disk drive.
> |
> |How many instances of the same program be in memory ????
>
> In a 65816-like system, each user could have 64K, a nice, nifty little
> segment of memory.  If an area is 'common' to either of them, that could
> be 64K too.
>
> |For each user ????
>
> Yes.
>
> |Then we save each instance into same file using the same filename ????
>
> Yes, just one filename for the whole thing, but we could let users
> have their own private tracks and sectors, if that proves fruitful.
>
> Let's suppose they are doing some graphics adjustments.  'Retouching'
> in other words.  Let's say this super-whizbang picture is four-planed,
> and each plane takes up 64K.  We can also assume that it is a fully
> expanded 65816-like system with 256 'banks' of 64K, so we can even flip
> some of these bitplanes around (good for fixing up mistakes, we can
> recover what we just flipped out).
>
> The only real problem is contention for resources.  Person A wants to
> save way too many 'copies' of his bit-plane in some other bank of
> memory and Person B could tell him to cut it out.  Or the OS could
> flag the memory-deprived individual of a potential resource theft
> and beep a few times.

Let the software manage where things are placed and this would be upto to
two main factors, what the user is working on and how the developer of the
software wants to make sure people are not working on the same segment of
the image or could have a timeslice environment. Where each user has an
individual window of the image file on their screen and its a mirror of the
content and it is updated at the beginning of timeslice (before the user can
do anything and would updated again before the next user does anything.) If
things are all fast enough - then it would not make much difference. Given
you can do this at around 133 MHz and is working on something that would not
slow down the task and be able to read user's input 15-60 times per second
and each update doesn't take any noticable time. In a text based
environment, it won't be much of an issue. Especially if every 60th of a
second each window is updated and two users (like reading two joysticks can
read two keyboards) and then they have a split screen where they type their
update code in the lower part and then it is put up. Like talking to the
SYSOP but now with two users connected together but the software ITSELF MUST
MANAGE the DATA and place it properly. OK, each user can actually work
directly in a mirror that is updated every 1/60th of a second and is the
main is updated during every KB read cycles.

In  U1S|KB1/MO1|MC|U2S|KB2/MO2|MC| order. This would be how a complete cycle
work.

User1ScreenUpdate/KBoard1&Mouse1/Main Content
update/User2screenUpdate/Kboard2&Mouse2/MainContent Screen Update (second
time)

Each user screen would be updated from the main content. So each other would
be able to know what each other has done. If this main cycle can be repeated
20-30 times a second or even 60 times a second then things will run smoothly
and the update of the other user's typing would be noticed. I Figure we can
have a Red cursor a Blue Cursor and a Purple cursor (if both cursors are at
the same spot.)

"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message
news:40755592$1@news.inet.com.pl...

> I don't know what setups you have used but there are some tools, which
> allow this approach mostly painless.
>
> One of them is available under:
>
> http://www.codingmonkeys.de/subethaedit/
>
> Combined with the "RendezVous" configuration... I think you might want
> to reconsider your opinion after gathering some experience with those.

It's for Mac. Can you find one for Windows ?

Well, I would say if things move fast enough and keeps each other updated in
each other's window (mirror or the actual content). I given a general
example of what needs to be done in a response to Matthew. People never
EXACTLY type at the same time or at least the KB buffer isn't accessed at
the exact same time. I just wanted to challenge Matthew to explain how the
data integrety is managed and how it would be done and it isn't exactly just
cycling through kboards and screen outputs. It is the syncronization and
constant real-time updating of the content on both viewer's screen and to
make sure the main content is updated before the next user's screen would be
updated "BEFORE" they type anything in. This is still a form of timeslicing.
By intervaling through the users and making sure each user's screen is
updated from the main content and making sure the main content is updated
after the previous user and before the next user and after the main content
is updated and before the upcoming user can type - his/her screen is
updated. To minimize time perhaps The next user's screen can be updated in
parallel with the main content.

If I am to write this up for the C-One, certainly - I would want to make
sure data (work) is not compromised.

Rick Balkins wrote:

>>I don't know what setups you have used but there are some tools, which
>>allow this approach mostly painless.
>>
>>One of them is available under:
>>
>>http://www.codingmonkeys.de/subethaedit/
>>
>>Combined with the "RendezVous" configuration... I think you might want
>>to reconsider your opinion after gathering some experience with those.
> 
> 
> It's for Mac. Can you find one for Windows ?
> 

Frankly, I didn't bother. The last Windows I used regularly was the 
"2000" version. But I believe there should be some similar tools for 
Windows too... well not with "RendezVous" capabilities probably but at 
least with the principle and the rest of the functionalities. If you 
have a chance to get to a small OS X network - give it a test drive. You 
will know what to look for on Windows then.

Michael Klein wrote:


>>Good explanation. Bad code is derived from bad programmers and can put a
>>wrench in the works for any system. Don't follow the rules and you risk
>>"destablizing" the OS / computer and crashes occur.
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If your app takes down the OS it *is* the OS' fault.
> 

As long as we are talking about the OS with full mem protection and res 
tracking (as I guess we are) - YES. No excuses.

"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message
news:4075948f$1@news.inet.com.pl...

> Frankly, I didn't bother. The last Windows I used regularly was the
> "2000" version. But I believe there should be some similar tools for
> Windows too... well not with "RendezVous" capabilities probably but at
> least with the principle and the rest of the functionalities. If you
> have a chance to get to a small OS X network - give it a test drive. You
> will know what to look for on Windows then.

Ok, np. Well I do have a Mac but its a fairly OLD one. Anyway, the college
has a couple of Macs here and there and several mediocre older macs in one
of the buildings and a couple at the main computer lab and another at the
MERTS (Marine Science & Integrated Technology facility).

OTOH, I usually perfer to buy the setup and then work with it.

I know it can be done and has been done but I usually program on my computer
and let someone beta test (if I don't decide to do the testing and
debugging). It has been traditionally the way I am. I usually
single-handedly build my programs. Sometime I would work with groups but
like to work on what I am to work on. As a group - we would agree on how we
would interface each part and from time to time  throughout the programming
of the software - we share and look over each others work. Of course, in
group situation, documenting your code (making comments like in BASIC the
REM marks) so we can have an understanding of what each other's code is
doing without having to spend alot of effort analyzing line by line,
instruction by instruction as to what is going on. Why have all that stress
?

"Michael Klein" <michael.klein@puffin.lb.shuttle.de> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.58.0404081754290.13851@puffin.puffin.lb.shuttle.de...

> Bullshit. If your app takes down the OS it *is* the OS' fault.
>

Every OS can go down. If I wrote a crappy app then it is my fault as the
programmer. I am suppose to make sure my program doesn't crash nor do
illegal actions. If I follow the rules and wrote my apps for Windows and
follow the rules of programming and rules of Windows then Windows won't
crash. If you try to program an app just like you do for Linux for Windows -
your app will have a high chance of f*cking up.

It is not the OSs fault because there is NO way an OS can possibly be
impervious. Even QNX is not impervious. YOU WRITE YOUR PROGRAM TO FOLLOW THE
RULES OF WHAT THE OS CAN ACCEPT AND NOT ACCEPT.

NO OS IS THE SAME. OTHERWISE IT WOULD ALL BE UNIX AND NO WINDOWS, NO LINUX,
NO BSDs, NO MACs.

There are things that an OS can work with and there are things that an OS
can't work with. There are apps that are "incompatible". Windows XP is not
Windows 98. Windows XP is NOT MS-DOS. If you want something to run on XP
then you either make the app as portable as possible or simply modify the
app for XP. Be flexible but FOLLOW the rules and UNDERSTAND what does and
doesn't work with the APIs and other stuff. It is in programming techniques
here. Now other situations may be with "viruses" which I can have a virus
that will lock your control+alt+delete key, freeze your keyboard and mouse
and even make restarting by pressing the restart button difficult. I can
have the virus then zero out the Absolute Sector 0 or Track zero and
re-write your kernal file and literally fuck the OS over and bypass your
antivirus if I needed it to bypass but you see - the thing is - it can be
done and there is NO way you can have an absolutely perfectly invinsible
disk (Hard Disk is still a disk) based OS. Just NOT possible. People tend to
install apps that changes configurations as the game is made to configured a
freshly installed Windows system to the configuration the game likes. If it
exits without cleaning up its mess then you have a problem. It is not all in
the OS. Run a C64 program not designed around GEOS after you loaded GEOS. It
is simply incompatible. Poor programmers are not compatible with computers
PERIOD. A poor programmer is a programmer that does NOT know how to program
properly. There are poor programmer in every field. Windows is intended to
be programmed by people who know how to program but due to its popularity -
it is sad that the fact is sad but true that there is poor programmers in
the Windows scene.

It doesn't mean that there is no good programmers either. Historically,
there isn't that many bad/poor programmers in Linux world because you have
to be an expert in computing and programming just to install Linux until
more recent years.

Rick Balkins wrote:

> 
>>Frankly, I didn't bother. The last Windows I used regularly was the
>>"2000" version. But I believe there should be some similar tools for
>>Windows too... well not with "RendezVous" capabilities probably but at
>>least with the principle and the rest of the functionalities. If you
>>have a chance to get to a small OS X network - give it a test drive. You
>>will know what to look for on Windows then.
> 

> Ok, np. Well I do have a Mac but its a fairly OLD one.

It requires OS X. That beast doesn't run [well] on OLD ones.

[...]

> I know it can be done and has been done but I usually program on my computer
> and let someone beta test (if I don't decide to do the testing and
> debugging). It has been traditionally the way I am.

Yes. That's the way most of us do. I was also skeptical until I saw that 
in some cases it gives really impressive results. I also don't quite use 
it for programming but taking collaborative notes/minutes on the big 
meetings or conferences without merging and distributing. Immediate 
corrections/additions. No duplicate notes and more. The result? Most 
complete, correct and understandable... Yes, I wouldn't like to be 
without the feature once I learned to "think different" ;-) The same is 
said to be applicable to programming.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404071705270.4043-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> ||IIRC, it was my brother's laptop.  He wanted me to sit there "until it
> ||starts playing" but he went to sleep at midnight.  Around 2:00 am, I
> ||decided to start exiting out of all of those diagnostics windows until
> ||there was finally just one, and it said "ILLEGAL FREQUENCY."
> |
> |I think we had two different music CDs that we were trying to listen
> |to, the first being The Chambers Brothers and the second being Ant Trip
> |Ceremony, both being great albums from the Sixties.
>
> I can't keep my eye on him continuously, but I am fairly sure that he
> had only managed to put one CD into the CD tray.  He is an expert mouse
> clicking kind of person, it seems like second nature to him.  I keep
> telling him that Windows is far more likely to crash if he clicks it
> fast than if he clicks it slow, so maybe that was why we ended up with
> an "ILLEGAL FREQUENCY" message?
>

LOL yeah that would be it.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404072029380.17540-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Sam Gillett wrote:
> |> |Have you tried running a memory check program?
> |>
> |> Has Microsoft tried writing an OS that actually works?
> |
> |Sidestepping again?  Have you tried answering a question?
> |
> |The question was, "Have you tried running a memory check program?"
>
> At no time have I ever claimed to know how a PC works, or which
> secret diagnostics programs should be used to fix it when it
> crashes.  Remember, when it comes to a PC, I am a mere Joe Average
> with no understanding WHY the darn thing crashes so much.
>
> Which memory "check" program should I have tried?  And why doesn't
> Windows run it automatically, seeing how often the thing crashes?

Because testing memory is testing for a hardware failure, and if you have
bad memory it is likely to crash Windows and the program that tests the
memory. That is why it is best done from DOS.

As to which one, try Memtest86 or Google is your friend here.






>

"Dave Ross" <watsonc64@ten.tsacmoc> wrote in message
news:OZScc.213318$po.1051913@attbi_s52...
> Matthew Montchalin wrote:
>
> > What exactly is your point?  That Commodore did it first, and it
> > costs a lot less to buy a C-128 used?
>
> Sure, the 128 did it first.

Nope, the IBM PC 5150 and up supported the use of two monitors and two
graphics cards. A lot of development systems in the first MDA/CGA days used
this approach.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404072040500.17540-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> Dave Ross wrote:
> |> I really don't understand what the thrust of your argument is.  Are
> |> you quibbling about the exact month, not just year, this happened?
> |
> |Yes, Matthew.  That is exactly what I want.  Not just down to the month,
> |though.  I want the exact hour, minute, and second it happened.
> |
> |Here, let me make it simple for you:
> |
> |MM: It's a pity that PC's need extra video cards to support dual displays
>
> You'll have to agree at this point.
>
> |DR: The 128 has two independent graphics chips that are accessed in
> |different ways.  How is this different than having multiple video cards?
>
> The C-128 when it came out, offered us two video outs (three if you
> include that crazy RF modulator thing).
>
> |MM: The 128 did it 20 years ago.
> |
> |DR: That doesn't explain the difference.
>
> The difference in 1985, or the difference in 2004?  That the PC has
> had nearly 20 years to work with the concept (for all intents and
> purposes, apparently borrowed from the C-128, and not the XT, because
> the C-128 is significantly more stable, and a superior platform to
> work on)

False. PC's running DOS at that time were extremely stable. The C128 barely
had any C128 specific software to stress the system anyway.

 causes me a great deal of surprise that consumers in today's
> Microsoft world are not offered a 'bundled' deal with two monitors,
> and one whiz-bang "be all, do all" software collection that utilizes
> both.

There is no call for that. I have the capability on my system but don't use
it.

> |MM: The 128 did it 20 years ago and you can buy a 128 for $20.
> |
> |DR: Those points are correct, but that still doesn't explain how the
> |setup in the 128 is different than having two video cards.
>
> The 128 was different from most PC computers when it came out, do
> you not agree?  And yet it has taken 20 years for the PC to come
> close to the C-128's dual monitor concept (ignoring the XT, which
> apparently never made much of a splash, seeing as how I had never
> heard of it).
>

The C128 didn't make much of a splash fullstop, unlike the PC.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404062011090.7449-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Sam Gillett wrote:
> |> But a C-128 with two monitors, still beats a PC with only one.
> |
> |When was the last time you switched your C128 to 1280x1024 pixel
resolution
> |while editing a digital photograph?
>
> One should naturally use the right tool for the right job.
>
> PC computers have their uses, it's just too bad that the code crashes
> so much. *

*Except it doesn't. My XP system is more stable and usable then any of my
Commodores ever were.

"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in
message news:1074hr1rdue5835@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4071e112$0$56490$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> >
> > I was talking about encoding hundreds of megabytes of wav file to a few
> > megabytes of mp3's. Encoding, as I pointed out and it certainly would
take
> > years on a 1mhz machine.
> >
>
> Ok and why are you turning a C64 into a Windows PC. You are talking
multiple
> WAV files right ???? Also are you talking loss of quality in sound. It
takes
> time on a Windows right ???? Anyway, why would you want Commodore or an
> AMIGA or a Mac to be Windows. Is this a wannabe Bill Gates thing. Okay,
how
> long would it take on a PCjr. Ok, not much of any difference - right.

The OS used is irrelevant or the format used, I just want to be able to do
it. The WAV format is convienient as it's both well supported and of high
quality.

> Now, let's see - how long does it take in Windows to do this. BTW: You
ain't
> cheating by using a hardware chipsets to assist the software. It really
> depends on the routine and if you are using a 5.25" drive. Get real, you
use
> an HD so use an HD on a C=.

Except HD's are standard on a typical PC's, so you should use a typical
C64/128 as an example also but anyway... we'll let that ride.

I'll do a test now...

Original WAV file size 35,533,094 bytes
48000hz Stereo 16 bits

Encoded to Mp3 (Blade)
File size 4,442,112 bytes
192kbps Stereo

Encoding time Athlon 1700+ 320MB RAM
33seconds


> The problem will mostly lie in use of slow drives. How long would you
think
> it be on the C-One ? (Take a look at all the available specs including
specs
> available at Professor Dredd's site and update that info with any known
> changes or updates on the official C-One site - include the JRISC and
factor
> its speed at around 100 MHz at least for a worst case scenario and
remember
> it was 32 Bits).
>
> Do an educated guess with all the variables and think if someone does the
> task of programming in a reasonable and efficient manner. I would consider
> that parts of the bus is operating at the same equivelent operating speed
as
> the ATA/33 or 66 drives  (Pentium~Pentium MMX) or even ATA100/133.

Forget the drives, the CPU is going to be the main bottleneck on a C-One.

> Given that and other stuff and a well written program that takes advantage
> of the hardware just like the Windows program is going to take advantage
of
> its hardware/instruction set and standardized chipsets and even take
> advantage of specific hardware for HW rendering (in any form of multimedia
> [video,sound,whatever]) if it applies or can assist.

Difficult with no FPU to take advantage of.

> Not everything is strictly done by the CPU or need to be done strictly by
> the CPU. Take advantage of what you can. :-) Take what you know of the
C-One
> and FPGA and make a good. Also not the I/O speed of the IDE and everything
> else is operated more efficiently than the IDE64 for one reason, it is not
> be interfaced through a 1 MHz channel. Think about it. The FPGA and system
> bus is operating at easily 66 MHz ~ 100 MHz based on given specs. Now that
> makes a difference on timing. On the C64, it is just a 1 MHz operation.
> IDE64 would be operating a 1 MHz because it has to pipe its data through
the
> cartridge port which is operating a 1 MHz because of the 6526 CIA chips.
> Now, if I remember correction - that is not the case in the C-One native
> mode. The FPGA in native mode would be moving data a tid bit faster. So
here
> is realistic aspects to look into. I don't think the IDE devices will be
> piped through a 1 MHz 8 bit channel to the memory (Multimedia ? SD-RAM ?)

The CPU will be the bottleneck.

> Anyway, here is some things that you would want to look into in giving an
> educated guess of real world performance of the task. You can take basic
> timing from different machines like the 386, 486 and other devices with
> equivelent performance chip by chip. The 65c816 is an independent
variable.
> Just take into consideration of the different aspects and figure potential
> datarates and stuff. This is what I would call an educated guess.
>
> Also keep in mind 5400 RPM, 7200 RPM and 10000 RPM HD and data seek timing
> and everything else.  Each variable will make a difference.

Not in encoding MP3's, the CPU is the main bottleneck here.

> Ok, it is a bit of math but this is why I say that 20x and 40x performance
> increase is not all that matters. When I compare this to a C64. It will
make
> a difference and inadvertantly it will make a difference in the whole
bigger
> picture in its comparisons. I think I put some factors that effects actual
> time of task to complete - hence "real world" time. What the user sees and
> how long they have to wait and add up the figures and given what the task
is
> will make a difference too. The hardware can be better for different
> software. The software then indeed needs to be compatible with the
> "harmonics" of the hardware. ( I am speaking metaphorically in the use of
> the word "harmonics" - I found that you miss that in the past based on
your
> responses) So try to follow and connect the dots. I hope you can come back
> with a response that shows that you understood. If there is something
> unclear, can you politely ask what I mean by something. I would say things
> will vary in real world performance based on the software and how it is
> written and how well the "software" does its job with the given hardware.
> Things will vary.
>
> Good Luck.    :-)
>

Given that it takes 33 seconds to encode on admittedly entry level hardware
(at best) I really do thing that doing the same on a 1mhz or 20mhz CPU is
going to take years although maybe not literally. It doesn't take a whole
lot of maths to figure out that a CPU intensive task is going to take an
extremely long time on a slow processor.

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4075e06d$0$56475$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...

> The OS used is irrelevant or the format used, I just want to be able to do
> it. The WAV format is convienient as it's both well supported and of high
> quality.

Ok but I think there is a variety of options we can do to deal with this but
I think time will tell as to how we do it.

> Except HD's are standard on a typical PC's, so you should use a typical
> C64/128 as an example also but anyway... we'll let that ride.
>
> I'll do a test now...
>
> Original WAV file size 35,533,094 bytes
> 48000hz Stereo 16 bits
>
> Encoded to Mp3 (Blade)
> File size 4,442,112 bytes
> 192kbps Stereo
>
> Encoding time Athlon 1700+ 320MB RAM
> 33seconds

I am roughly giving the 1700+ equivelency to 1.7 GHz.

At 1 MHz it would take about 62 hours - 249.3333 hours (2.6 days - 10.4
days). Maybe 7-10 hours with the JRISC support. (This is if we count that
the orignal 33 seconds is shear CPU time and NOT a majority of the time is
actually because of the drive mechanism. You see - if most of the 33 second
is because of the drive then we are talking about a significant portion be
speed of the drive itself or simply the fact that the drive is writing at a
lower RPM. Whatever the case is. Now, the C-One would be comparitive with a
modern HD which would be standardly available when you build a C-One. If the
actual program is written around the JRISC and not the 65c816 - then we
would be reasonably compared to a Pentium 133 MHz here. I am not sure if it
is going to be easy to know exactly how much of the conversion process time
is contributed to the HD and how much is actual "CPU" time.  On a
Commodore - we can often figure this out. How long after typing run does it
take to process the info and how much time is contributed to the disk drive.
How long it takes to LOAD before typing run.

> Forget the drives, the CPU is going to be the main bottleneck on a C-One.

Can be but the C-One can be seen as a dual CPU. One is integrated in the 30K
FPGA and is called the JRISC and the other is the stocked 65c816. The
bottleneck changes a bit if the code is distributed to the JRISC and have
the JRISC do the math job. Why put the load on the 65c816. Now of course -
pop out the 65c816 and manage to make a core update in which you can
sucessfully hook a Transmeta CPU card into the PCI slot. (by converting the
PCI slot into a 66 MHz or 133 MHz 32 Bit CPU Slot). If it is sucessfully
done sometime in the future. Then we could have a 1 GHz system. But this is
just a concept though and requires work.

The CPU can be a bottleneck but is the JRISC a bottleneck ???? Is the JRISC
20 MHz. NO!!  Is it 32 Bit - YES. Is it tested to clock at 133 MHz or
something like that in the simulation - YES. Jens mentioned that. Now this
really does help if the software itself is written for the C-One just as the
software written for Windows is written for Windows.

> Difficult with no FPU to take advantage of.

True very true but let's wait til the JRISC is complete and anyway - that
can help and even an FPU can be put into the 100K FPGA and possibly assist
the JRISC. Since the two FPGA do have a connection path between each other
that does not go through the 65c816.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CommodoreOne/files/c1archmodified2004.PNG

Take a look at the block diagram. (Basically the same as MVs block diagram
with the change of the 6502 with the words JRISC)

This can get really sick if a second JRISC is implemented in the 100K FPGA.
Now, this is potentially possible.
This is done by simply loading a copy of the core in the FlashROM (which
would be located in the HD) into the 100K FPGA.

> The CPU will be the bottleneck.

What if a second JRISC is programmed into the 100K FPGA ???? Would it really
be a bottleneck ????


> Not in encoding MP3's, the CPU is the main bottleneck here.

If the processing must be done by the 65c816. There seems that there is a
passage of communication back to the other FPGA through the FPGA. Block
diagram really doesn't show.

> Given that it takes 33 seconds to encode on admittedly entry level
hardware
> (at best) I really do thing that doing the same on a 1mhz or 20mhz CPU is
> going to take years although maybe not literally. It doesn't take a whole
> lot of maths to figure out that a CPU intensive task is going to take an
> extremely long time on a slow processor.

On a stock C64 - I'll agree that it will take a long time. Now, it will take
less time on a C-One. On a C64 even with a SCPU - the bottleneck would ALSO
be the I/O chips (6526 CIAs) which are still operating at 1 MHz. The Serial
Bus is still operating at 1 MHz even with the SCPU. Given a direct connect
with the SCPU on a 20 MHz bus would not be so bad but there is an EXTREME
bottleneck even with the IDE64 connecting through the Expansion port which
is clocked at 1 MHz still and pass-thru back to the C64 motherboard not the
SCPU. The Expansion port pass thru on the SCPU is not 20 MHz from what I
recall and the DMA data goes back to the C64's RAM chips through the CIAs
from what I recall. Correct me if I was mistaken in my understanding in
this.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...

> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Sam Gillett wrote:
>
> |The question was, "Have you tried running a memory check program?"
>
> At no time have I ever claimed to know how a PC works, or which
> secret diagnostics programs should be used to fix it when it
> crashes.  Remember, when it comes to a PC, I am a mere Joe Average
> with no understanding WHY the darn thing crashes so much.

You have more than average knowledge about how a PC works, or you would not
have been able to write MAS-128.  You just have to understand that there is a
vast difference between the C128 and a mid 90's PC.  General theory is the
same.  Implementation is very different.

Your local book-seller may not have what you need, but big city bookstores
have books on "Upgrading and Repairing Your PC."  In fact, that is the title
of one of them.

> Which memory "check" program should I have tried?  And why doesn't
> Windows run it automatically, seeing how often the thing crashes?

As Clockmeister explained, it is best to use a memory checker that can be
used from a bootable DOS disk.  There are Windows based diagnostic programs,
but they can only test the portion of RAM that Windows is not using, and
Windows has a pretty large footprint.

Clockmeister suggested one, and there are dozens more on the internet.  I
have a memory tester on a bootable 3.5" floppy that is part of a PC
diagnostic package that I purchased several years ago.  You might find
something similar at a retailer that specializes in computer parts in your
area.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote ...

> Sam Gillett wrote:
> >
> > The IBM XT was introduced, IIRC, in 1983.  I don't know how long it took
for
> > users to discover that it could be used with two video cards, but it
seems
> > reasonable to assume that it had been done by 1985.
>
> They tried (including the undersigned) but before the PCI era there were
> two things, which prevented successful setups:
>
> 1) the PC-Interrupt roulette was barely to win
> 2) Most popular MDA/HGC cards didn't like any other on the bus

It has been a long time, and as best that I can remember, only MDA and CGA
could coexist.

> Of course then, there was still the inexistent software support for
> practically inexistend "dual-head" hardware setups.

Of course both screens displayed the same thing.  The few setups I heard
about on local BBSes were used like this; the CGA monitor would be used for
playing games, and the mono monitor would be used for word processing, etc.
as it caused less eyestrain.  (Remember those little 13" CGA monitors?)  But,
not both at the same time.

> I wouldn't call the early trials a true possibility. This in practice
> means that only the advent of PCI bus allowed more than one display on
> the generic pc. That certainly didn't happen in 1985.

I only remember two people doing it.  And when they upgraded to a 286 with
VGA they started using the same monitor for both games and work.    ;-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

Matthew is currently in Portland. I have a postal address. He has some big
bookstores in the regional area. A 15-20 maybe 30 minute drive in Portland
traffic - he would be in Wilsonville (a nearby city) where he can buy parts
for a PC or even upgrade it. It's called Fry's Electronics. Hell, I go out
there to buy parts inexpensively occassionally though because of the
distance. I buy the parts that are in factory packaged containment and are
not returned for the most part. I buy BRAND new.

"Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message
news:wHodc.2836$F9.1813@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> You have more than average knowledge about how a PC works, or you would
not
> have been able to write MAS-128.  You just have to understand that there
is a
> vast difference between the C128 and a mid 90's PC.  General theory is the
> same.  Implementation is very different.
>
> Your local book-seller may not have what you need, but big city bookstores
> have books on "Upgrading and Repairing Your PC."  In fact, that is the
title
> of one of them.
<<< snip >>>

I have a Commodore PC-10 which is an XT clone.

"Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message
news:xHodc.2837$F9.981@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> It has been a long time, and as best that I can remember, only MDA and CGA
> could coexist.
>
> Of course both screens displayed the same thing.  The few setups I heard
> about on local BBSes were used like this; the CGA monitor would be used
for
> playing games, and the mono monitor would be used for word processing,
etc.
> as it caused less eyestrain.  (Remember those little 13" CGA monitors?)
But,
> not both at the same time.
>
> I only remember two people doing it.  And when they upgraded to a 286 with
> VGA they started using the same monitor for both games and work.    ;-)
>

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404080416420.26755-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...

> Twenty dollars sounds like you are trying to cut into somebody else's
> market.  But if you had sole control over the market, wouldn't you
> be more likely to ask for $295?

We are talking about Commodore users. They don't spend more then $99 on
anything. They are either PC users with alot of money and spend it on their
PCs and occasionally play with their Commodore or they are too poor to spend
alot of money. It is going to be a challenge to get them to spend more than
$50 on a single piece of software. Especially when they would want me to put
5 times as much. A book and 4-6 CD-ROMs for $99. For $295 - they would want
4-6 DVD+-RW and two books. The main one and a Cheats/Tips & Hints book.

I can probably push the envelope but for the price - they WANT alot. I would
say

> |I really look at how much the media cost and make a fair comparison.
> |$20 compared to what I would charge $10.
>
> I think that is way too low.

Well, I would charge more for dual screens but the base figure of the price
would be dependent on the type of program it is and with dual screens - it
would be a little. For $49.99 program it may be $60 - 75.

I would look at the precise program and the nature of it and would intend to
keep it affordable. I am not sure as to how many people would spend $295 for
a program for a C-One for example or a C64. They would expect more from the
C-One - heck it's newer and has enhance features so they expect more but I
will be compared to the PC market software as well. It is simply fact. I
would have to get them to spend money on my software and not go with someone
else so I am in competition with the WHOLE computer industry. If you are
going to commercially market anything above $99 - you are going to compared
with PC software. For the most part - in C64 software it really can't be
beyond $25 for a single program and even that must include a manual. That is
today's market anything for C64 in the price range of PC software/hardware
better be low cost and have alot. In other words - you can't make a profit
in the C64 scene. You MUST spend more money then you will receive.
Otherwise, you will be simply ignored. This is why things are commercially
f*cked up. Anyway, at $10 - I'll technically profit but never pay off my
time just material cost. Which means you must undercut yourself. I don't see
much difference in the C-One in this respect either. I am more than willing
to charge you $295 if you are willing to pay.  ;-)

Clockmeister wrote:
|> > What exactly is your point?  That Commodore did it first, and it
|> > costs a lot less to buy a C-128 used?
|>
|> Sure, the 128 did it first.
|
|Nope, the IBM PC 5150 and up supported the use of two monitors and two
|graphics cards. A lot of development systems in the first MDA/CGA days
|used this approach.

I am naturally amazed at this sudden turn of events.  You'd think
people would have known about this amazing feature, and promoted
it accordingly.

Clockmeister wrote:
|PC's running DOS at that time were extremely stable.

False.  PC's running DOS were stable for only temporary periods of
time, and became frustratingly unstable the moment Windows was installed
on them.

|The C128 barely had any C128 specific software to stress the system
|anyway.

False.  Your experience with the C-128 was apparently limited to JiffyDOS
and GEOS based systems.

Clockmeister wrote:
|> |When was the last time you switched your C128 to 1280x1024 pixel
|> |resolution while editing a digital photograph?
|>
|> One should naturally use the right tool for the right job.
|>
|> PC computers have their uses, it's just too bad that the code crashes
|> so much. *
|
|*Except it doesn't.

Sure it does.

|My XP system is more stable and usable then any of my
|Commodores ever were.

Your experience with glitchy Commodores is probably comparable to my
experience with glitchy PCs, except I can find a lot more people that
have had catastrophic experiences with their PCs.

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Rick Balkins wrote:
|He has some big bookstores in the regional area. A 15-20 maybe 30 minute
|drive in Portland traffic - he would be in Wilsonville (a nearby city)
|where he can buy parts for a PC or even upgrade it.

That's not particularly high on my priority list right now.

|It's called Fry's Electronics. Hell, I go out there to buy parts
|inexpensively occassionally though because of the distance. I buy the
|parts that are in factory packaged containment and are not returned for
|the most part. I buy BRAND new.

Strange that Frye's Electronics doesn't even carry magneticc stripe
cards, what's wrong with those people?  The sales personnel just
wander around, and eventually suggest that I go build one myself.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404082245570.30859-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> Clockmeister wrote:
> |PC's running DOS at that time were extremely stable.
>
> False.  PC's running DOS were stable for only temporary periods of
> time, and became frustratingly unstable the moment Windows was installed
> on them.

More bullshit and makebelieve. Programs under DOS were very, very stable,
the PC's also had the benefit of 80 an columns display that was of very high
quality (MDA) and thousands of professional quality applications that
supported it.

The C128 made no impact here, especially as it arrived on the scene so late.

> |The C128 barely had any C128 specific software to stress the system
> |anyway.
>
> False.  Your experience with the C-128 was apparently limited to JiffyDOS
> and GEOS based systems.

No, the fact that whilst there were mountains of professional productivity
software for PC's there was virtually nothing for C128 was all too apparent.

That was well before Windows made any kind of impact.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404082244330.30859-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> Clockmeister wrote:
> |> > What exactly is your point?  That Commodore did it first, and it
> |> > costs a lot less to buy a C-128 used?
> |>
> |> Sure, the 128 did it first.
> |
> |Nope, the IBM PC 5150 and up supported the use of two monitors and two
> |graphics cards. A lot of development systems in the first MDA/CGA days
> |used this approach.
>
> I am naturally amazed at this sudden turn of events.  You'd think
> people would have known about this amazing feature, and promoted
> it accordingly.

Not many people use it now, it really isn't all that useful for the average
person and I can't think of anyone who had two monitors connected to their
C128 either. It really wasn't all that useful in the day for the average
person.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404082248150.30859-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> Clockmeister wrote:
> |> |When was the last time you switched your C128 to 1280x1024 pixel
> |> |resolution while editing a digital photograph?
> |>
> |> One should naturally use the right tool for the right job.
> |>
> |> PC computers have their uses, it's just too bad that the code crashes
> |> so much. *
> |
> |*Except it doesn't.
>
> Sure it does.

Nope. You are either a fool or a lier.

> |My XP system is more stable and usable then any of my
> |Commodores ever were.
>
> Your experience with glitchy Commodores is probably comparable to my
> experience with glitchy PCs, except I can find a lot more people that
> have had catastrophic experiences with their PCs.

No Matthew.

Oh my. Why, oh why, did I even bother to reply to this jerk...

> "Michael Klein" <michael.klein@puffin.lb.shuttle.de> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.58.0404081754290.13851@puffin.puffin.lb.shuttle.de...
>
> > Bullshit. If your app takes down the OS it *is* the OS' fault.
>
> Every OS can go down.

Sure. Because every OS has its share of bugs or because of hardware
failure.  Crappy (=buggy) drivers can cause this, too. But an
application must *never* have an impact on the stability of the OS
itself.

> I am suppose to make sure my program doesn't crash nor do
> illegal actions. If I follow the rules and wrote my apps for Windows and
> follow the rules of programming and rules of Windows then Windows won't
> crash. If you try to program an app just like you do for Linux for Windows -
> your app will have a high chance of f*cking up.

If a program "doesn't follow the rules" it is supposed to be simply
kicked out by the OS.

Go read a book about modern OS design.

> NO OS IS THE SAME. OTHERWISE IT WOULD ALL BE UNIX AND NO WINDOWS, NO LINUX,
> NO BSDs, NO MACs.

What, no Media Access Control then?

> There are things that an OS can work with and there are things that an OS
> can't work with. There are apps that are "incompatible". Windows XP is not
> Windows 98. Windows XP is NOT MS-DOS. If you want something to run on XP
[blah blah blah]

> It doesn't mean that there is no good programmers either. Historically,
> there isn't that many bad/poor programmers in Linux world because you have
> to be an expert in computing and programming just to install Linux until
> more recent years.

pfft. senseless blabber.

-- 
Michael

I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence.
There's a knob called "brightness", but it doesn't seem to work.
                -- Gallagher

Rick Balkins wrote:

> I have a Commodore PC-10 which is an XT clone.
> 

It is a bad understatement to call CBM's PC-10 an XT _clone_. Calling XT 
_class_ machine is much more appropriate but calling it a clone means 
forgetting and neglecting a fact that it's got a number of features the 
XT (and AT) including all the "clones" didn't even dream about!

"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message
news:407670e5$1@news.inet.com.pl...
> Rick Balkins wrote:
>
> > I have a Commodore PC-10 which is an XT clone.
> >
>
> It is a bad understatement to call CBM's PC-10 an XT _clone_. Calling XT
> _class_ machine is much more appropriate but calling it a clone means
> forgetting and neglecting a fact that it's got a number of features the
> XT (and AT) including all the "clones" didn't even dream about!

Ok, but to me a clone doesn't particularly have to be 100% the same. It can
have 100% of what the XT is and have a few special features.
Well most of the graphics features is due to the ATI video card (believe it
or not - its ATI).

Nevertheless, I agree with you. I was trying to shorten the number of
letters to type.

"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message
news:407670e5$1@news.inet.com.pl...
> Rick Balkins wrote:
>
> > I have a Commodore PC-10 which is an XT clone.
> >
>
> It is a bad understatement to call CBM's PC-10 an XT _clone_. Calling XT
> _class_ machine is much more appropriate but calling it a clone means
> forgetting and neglecting a fact that it's got a number of features the
> XT (and AT) including all the "clones" didn't even dream about!

Like?

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote ...

> "Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404082244330.30859-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> >
> > I am naturally amazed at this sudden turn of events.  You'd think
> > people would have known about this amazing feature, and promoted
> > it accordingly.
>
> Not many people use it now, it really isn't all that useful for the average
> person and I can't think of anyone who had two monitors connected to their
> C128 either.

Out of curiosity I connected two monitors to my C128.

> It really wasn't all that useful in the day for the average person.

So after playing around for an hour I disconnected the extra monitor.  After
all, I could switch my 1902A from 40 column composite mode to 80 column RGB
with a single switch on the front panel.  There was really no point in
wasting space with the extra monitor.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote ...
>
> "Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404082245570.30859-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> > False.  PC's running DOS were stable for only temporary periods of
> > time, and became frustratingly unstable the moment Windows was installed
> > on them.
>
> More bullshit and makebelieve. Programs under DOS were very, very stable,
> the PC's also had the benefit of 80 an columns display that was of very
> high quality (MDA) and thousands of professional quality applications that
> supported it.
>
> The C128 made no impact here, especially as it arrived on the scene so
> late.

True to a degree.  Commodore should have introduced the C64 when the VIC-20
came out, and then the C128 when they introduced the C64.  The computing
scene today might be different if they had.  But they didn't.  Commodore made
some very good computers, but they were always a couple of years, and several
kilobytes short.

> > False.  Your experience with the C-128 was apparently limited to JiffyDOS
> > and GEOS based systems.
>
> No, the fact that whilst there were mountains of professional productivity
> software for PC's there was virtually nothing for C128 was all too
> apparent.

Quite a bit of good productivity software was available for the C128...
perhaps a year or so after its introduction.  But the applications for the
C128 were really no match for the applications that could be purchased off
the shelf for the PC.

In 1985 the best word processor available for the C218 was WordStar for the
CP/M mode.  In the early 80's, WordStar was _the_ word processor.  But by
1985, no one in their right mind would want WordStar in their office when
they could have WordPerfect instead.

> That was well before Windows made any kind of impact.

True, Windows didn't make an impact on the computer world until 3.0 came out.
Earlier versions had been too full of bugs... and if Matthew were to say
Windows 1.0 crashes all of the time... well, he would be right.

In the early 90's I had Windows 3.11 working quite well... and stable! on a
386 with 4 megs of RAM.  Sure some software could crash it, but most software
was perfectly stable.  The real troublemakers were the install programs.
Today, it still pays to make backups of system files before installing new
software.  One of the nice things about XT is that it does that for you
automatically.

Stable as it may have been it was still quite easy to crash MS-DOS.  All you
had to do was install about two dozen TSR's, especially if a couple of them
conflicted with each other.

I also found it quite easy to crash the C128 trying out software downloaded
from Q-Link or GEnie.  Some programs, although they worked fine, would leave
a "time bomb" waiting to be set off by the next program when you exited to
the ready. prompt.

As I said the other day... No one has yet invented an OS that can not be
crashed.  And when someone does, someone else will invent a new way to crash
an OS and crash it!

It is a vicious circle.    ;-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004, Sam Gillett wrote:
|> It really wasn't all that useful in the day for the average person.
|
|So after playing around for an hour I disconnected the extra monitor.

Why?

|After all, I could switch my 1902A from 40 column composite mode to 80
|column RGB with a single switch on the front panel.  There was really no
|point in wasting space with the extra monitor.

Even BASIC 7.0 lets you drive both monitors separately, I'm surprised
you didn't try to draw different designs on each of them.  OTOH, if
you just want to click a mouse on GEOS, that might explain your
reluctance to try anything adventurous.

"Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote ...

> Today, it still pays to make backups of system files before installing new
> software.  One of the nice things about XT is that it does that for you
> automatically.

Whoops!  That should have been XP insteadd of XT.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

UFO's are real.
It's the Air Force that doesn't exist!

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...

> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004, Sam Gillett wrote:
> |> It really wasn't all that useful in the day for the average person.
> |
> |So after playing around for an hour I disconnected the extra monitor.
>
> Why?

That was already explained below.

> |After all, I could switch my 1902A from 40 column composite mode to 80
> |column RGB with a single switch on the front panel.  There was really no
> |point in wasting space with the extra monitor.
>
> Even BASIC 7.0 lets you drive both monitors separately, I'm surprised
> you didn't try to draw different designs on each of them.  OTOH, if
> you just want to click a mouse on GEOS, that might explain your
> reluctance to try anything adventurous.

Personally, I never ran GEOS on my machine, although I have seen it on other
peoples computers.  Since I had no software that would let me use two modems
at the same time, of what use would two monitors be?
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

Sam Gillett wrote:
|> Even BASIC 7.0 lets you drive both monitors separately, I'm surprised
|> you didn't try to draw different designs on each of them.  OTOH, if
|> you just want to click a mouse on GEOS, that might explain your
|> reluctance to try anything adventurous.
|
|Personally, I never ran GEOS on my machine, although I have seen it on
|other peoples computers.  Since I had no software that would let me use
|two modems at the same time, of what use would two monitors be?

Fair enough, it all depends on what you want to do with your computer.

If telecommunications is a major component of your life (as it is for
just about everybody here at comp.sys.cbm), then playing around by
drawing stuff on different screens can get pretty boring.  Especially
if you are not into graphics, and would rather live by the written
word.

Clockmeister wrote:

>>>I have a Commodore PC-10 which is an XT clone.
>>>
>>
>>It is a bad understatement to call CBM's PC-10 an XT _clone_. Calling XT
>>_class_ machine is much more appropriate but calling it a clone means
>>forgetting and neglecting a fact that it's got a number of features the
>>XT (and AT) including all the "clones" didn't even dream about!
> 
> 
> Like?
> 

Check the specs.

"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message
news:4077c98b@news.inet.com.pl...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> >>>I have a Commodore PC-10 which is an XT clone.
> >>>
> >>
> >>It is a bad understatement to call CBM's PC-10 an XT _clone_. Calling XT
> >>_class_ machine is much more appropriate but calling it a clone means
> >>forgetting and neglecting a fact that it's got a number of features the
> >>XT (and AT) including all the "clones" didn't even dream about!
> >
> >
> > Like?
> >

You mean the onboard stuff?

"Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message
news:4MJdc.5978$F9.1040@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote ...
> >
> > "Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404082245570.30859-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> > > False.  PC's running DOS were stable for only temporary periods of
> > > time, and became frustratingly unstable the moment Windows was
installed
> > > on them.
> >
> > More bullshit and makebelieve. Programs under DOS were very, very
stable,
> > the PC's also had the benefit of 80 an columns display that was of very
> > high quality (MDA) and thousands of professional quality applications
that
> > supported it.
> >
> > The C128 made no impact here, especially as it arrived on the scene so
> > late.
>
> True to a degree.  Commodore should have introduced the C64 when the
VIC-20
> came out, and then the C128 when they introduced the C64.  The computing
> scene today might be different if they had.  But they didn't.  Commodore
made
> some very good computers, but they were always a couple of years, and
several
> kilobytes short.

SNIP

I agree with every aspect of your post :-)

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404100120430.15998-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> Sam Gillett wrote:
> |> Even BASIC 7.0 lets you drive both monitors separately, I'm surprised
> |> you didn't try to draw different designs on each of them.  OTOH, if
> |> you just want to click a mouse on GEOS, that might explain your
> |> reluctance to try anything adventurous.
> |
> |Personally, I never ran GEOS on my machine, although I have seen it on
> |other peoples computers.  Since I had no software that would let me use
> |two modems at the same time, of what use would two monitors be?
>
> Fair enough, it all depends on what you want to do with your computer.
>
> If telecommunications is a major component of your life (as it is for
> just about everybody here at comp.sys.cbm), then playing around by
> drawing stuff on different screens can get pretty boring.  Especially
> if you are not into graphics, and would rather live by the written
> word.

I doubt you would be using a C128 to do graphics, there are and were far
better tools for the job even in 1985.

Rick Balkins wrote:
> Every OS can go down. If I wrote a crappy app then it is my fault as
> the programmer. I am suppose to make sure my program doesn't crash
> nor do illegal actions. If I follow the rules and wrote my apps for
> Windows and follow the rules of programming and rules of Windows then
> Windows won't crash. If you try to program an app just like you do
> for Linux for Windows - your app will have a high chance of f*cking
> up.
>
> It is not the OSs fault because there is NO way an OS can possibly be
> impervious. Even QNX is not impervious. YOU WRITE YOUR PROGRAM TO
> FOLLOW THE RULES OF WHAT THE OS CAN ACCEPT AND NOT ACCEPT.

It may not be possible to prevent all crashes. However, there are certain
programming practicecs that can be followed that tend to drastically reduce
the chance of them.

Memory protection: Virtual memory, where the OS simulates an address range
for the sake of the program, but is actually using the MMU to load the
program in an entirely different address range, even swapping it out to
slower storage if needed. Since every memory access must pass through the
MMU and the OS, programs cannot write to memory they have not asked for and
cause problems for other processes.

Resource tracking: The OS keeps track of the memory allocations and hardware
requests that a program makes, and frees up the resources when the program
exits. The programmer does not have to worry about tracking the resources
and freeing them explicitly on program exit, and "memory leaks" and/or other
program errors have less chance to bring the system down by hogging system
resources.

QNX is one of the best at this. Programs may crash, but the chances of the
QNX OS crashing as a result of a program behaving badly are extremely small.

> NO OS IS THE SAME. OTHERWISE IT WOULD ALL BE UNIX AND NO WINDOWS, NO
> LINUX, NO BSDs, NO MACs.

Rick, you show your ignorance here.

BSD *is* Unix. Unix System V contains a considerable amount of code that
came from the BSD releases.

Linux is, at the very least, very much similar to Unix.

Mac OS X is partially BSD code, over a Mach kernel.

> There are things that an OS can work with and there are things that
> an OS can't work with.

<snip typical Rick Balkins statement of the obvious>

Only politicians include as much "background" information when making what
SHOULD be a simple point. Are you running for office, Rick?

Clockmeister wrote:
> Given that it takes 33 seconds to encode on admittedly entry level
> hardware (at best) I really do thing that doing the same on a 1mhz or
> 20mhz CPU is going to take years although maybe not literally. It
> doesn't take a whole lot of maths to figure out that a CPU intensive
> task is going to take an extremely long time on a slow processor.

Stock Rick answer #1: So, add an FPU in the FPGA.

Stock Rick answer #2: Design a hardware MP3 encoder for the FPGA.

"It can't be all that hard, can it?"

By the way, Rick, if you're reading this: YES. IT CAN.

Clockmeister wrote:

>>
>>
>>>>>I have a Commodore PC-10 which is an XT clone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is a bad understatement to call CBM's PC-10 an XT _clone_. Calling XT
>>>>_class_ machine is much more appropriate but calling it a clone means
>>>>forgetting and neglecting a fact that it's got a number of features the
>>>>XT (and AT) including all the "clones" didn't even dream about!
>>>
>>>
>>>Like?
>>>
> 
> 
> You mean the onboard stuff?

Yes. Most (or even all) of those I referred to, in fact is onboard.

If you know VHDL just as well a C/C++ programming - it really isn't because
their education bridges that gap. BTW: Some the work is already done. When
cores are "already" made. It isn't exactly that hard. Just learn hardware
and VHDL like you learn programming. It isn't IMPOSSIBLE. It just take
modifying the source then re-synthesize. Know the rules of electronics and
all - you are on your way. If you are smart enough to know C/C++. YOU have
the brain power to learn this stuff. I believe you have the brain power to
learn it fairly well and it be easy compared to doing it without the
knowledge and brain power. Of course, if you are Matthew - it will be hard.
A good portion of the work for the FPU FPGA's are already done but man - I
don't really find programming in C/C++ or Assembly "hard". I can find these
time-consuming but time-consuming and hard are not the same thing. So it
isn't hard if you have the brain power to learn and look things up and just
study the world of electronics and learn VHDL. It is alot easier than doing
VLSI fabrication from scratch but if you call it hard - you are defeating
yourself. Don't do that. I believe you have the potential to learn it.

There is plenty to learn and explore and study but that is not "hard". It is
just complaining. Quit whining and just do. First off, get the basics of the
syntax of VHDL and what it does and what it relates to then you begin to get
an idea as to what things do when you look at a VHDL source. Just work it
out. At some point, you'll get better but that is not hard. It is just a
challenge.

I will have to agree with you that it can if you try to run without knowing
how to walk first. Also if you are a retard or a Matthew Montchalin - it
would be hard. Now, there is people like Lord Ronin which doesn't yet have
the basics but he is getting along with beginning BASIC so far. It really
isn't hard but without the basics and foundation - you would end up
endlessly guess yourself which will make it harder for you. There are
websites. There are even University sites. Google is your friend and with
the right search, you'll get to find and learn things if you read. The web
is like a massive text book. Even some of the sites have Powerpoint
presentations which I view. Note: If multiple people say the same thing and
are all around in the world then it is likely a very true statement. You can
check with friends that know. You'll have days when you are up in questions
but that is not "hard". Just ask a knowledgable friend in the field. You
have the brain power to do that.

FPUs have been fitted in smaller FPGAs and most opensource FPUs are fairly
small and would fit in a 30K FPGA since most of these people are working in
a small budget. They aren't big corporations with $10 Million budget. So we
got them tested for reasonably small FPGAs and with the right tool - it can
be synthesized to the Altera ACEX 100K FPGA with only a little adjustment.


"Kelli Halliburton" <kelli217@crosswinds.not> wrote in message
news:c5b0ip$nda@dispatch.concentric.net...

> Stock Rick answer #1: So, add an FPU in the FPGA.
>
> Stock Rick answer #2: Design a hardware MP3 encoder for the FPGA.
>
> "It can't be all that hard, can it?"
>
> By the way, Rick, if you're reading this: YES. IT CAN.
>
>

"Kelli Halliburton" <kelli217@crosswinds.not> wrote in message
news:c5b0ai$nd0@dispatch.concentric.net...

> It may not be possible to prevent all crashes. However, there are certain
> programming practicecs that can be followed that tend to drastically
reduce
> the chance of them.
>
> Memory protection: Virtual memory, where the OS simulates an address range
> for the sake of the program, but is actually using the MMU to load the
> program in an entirely different address range, even swapping it out to
> slower storage if needed. Since every memory access must pass through the
> MMU and the OS, programs cannot write to memory they have not asked for
and
> cause problems for other processes.
>
> Resource tracking: The OS keeps track of the memory allocations and
hardware
> requests that a program makes, and frees up the resources when the program
> exits. The programmer does not have to worry about tracking the resources
> and freeing them explicitly on program exit, and "memory leaks" and/or
other
> program errors have less chance to bring the system down by hogging system
> resources.
>
> QNX is one of the best at this. Programs may crash, but the chances of the
> QNX OS crashing as a result of a program behaving badly are extremely
small.
>
> > NO OS IS THE SAME. OTHERWISE IT WOULD ALL BE UNIX AND NO WINDOWS, NO
> > LINUX, NO BSDs, NO MACs.
>
> Rick, you show your ignorance here.
>
> BSD *is* Unix. Unix System V contains a considerable amount of code that
> came from the BSD releases.

BSD is a variant of Unix (very close). We are talking original 1960s UNIX.
People diverge from something to improve it. Yes BSD is VERY much UNIX but
you would not have the "variety". Even the distros vary. Mostly carrying
standard stuff. But you also would not have the AMIGA OS and all those other
OSs. So not every single OS is the same. Many are closely similar but not
100% which the word "same" implies.

> Linux is, at the very least, very much similar to Unix.
>
> Mac OS X is partially BSD code, over a Mach kernel.

True.

It is agreed upon that as OSs improved - the chances of certain things
crashing the whole OS - are now rare.

What I was referring to is if everyone made OSs the same - progression would
not happen since the OS would not be any different and be 100% the same and
go back to when OSs came out my friend. Go back to 1950s and 1960s.

"Kelli Halliburton" <kelli217@crosswinds.not> wrote ...

> Clockmeister wrote:
> > Given that it takes 33 seconds to encode on admittedly entry level
> > hardware (at best) I really do thing that doing the same on a 1mhz or
> > 20mhz CPU is going to take years although maybe not literally. It
> > doesn't take a whole lot of maths to figure out that a CPU intensive
> > task is going to take an extremely long time on a slow processor.
>
> Stock Rick answer #1: So, add an FPU in the FPGA.
>
> Stock Rick answer #2: Design a hardware MP3 encoder for the FPGA.
>
> "It can't be all that hard, can it?"

Interesting theory.  The FPGA possesses magical qualities that enable it to
cure all computing difficulties.

Perhaps if he were to open the case, and install an FPGA, Matthew's Compaq
would stop crashing?!?

I like the idea!    ;-)

-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Out of my mind.  Back in 5 minutes!

Rick Balkins wrote:
|If you know VHDL just as well a C/C++ programming - it really isn't
|because their education bridges that gap. BTW: Some the work is already
|done. When cores are "already" made. It isn't exactly that hard. Just
|learn hardware and VHDL like you learn programming. It isn't IMPOSSIBLE.

Geeze, I haven't even been able to figure out PLD - the language used for
programming "Programmable Logic Devices" - let alone VHDL.

Can you suggest an inexpensive series of magazine articles that deal
with the PLD script language used in those PAL or GAL chips?

Or a series of back issues in a Commodore Users Group newsletter that
touches on these subjects?

If only that magazine out of Tacoma - Commander Magazine - had never
been sold out and run under, they'd have probably run a whole series
of articles on those kinds of subjects.  Or maybe Transactor would have.

Sigh

Sam Gillett wrote:
|> "It can't be all that hard, can it?"
|
|Interesting theory.  The FPGA possesses magical qualities that enable it to
|cure all computing difficulties.
|
|Perhaps if he were to open the case, and install an FPGA, Matthew's Compaq
|would stop crashing?!?
|
|I like the idea!    ;-)

Can you suggest a way of programming a GAL to emulate a 74SL240 octal
latch?  "Generic Array Logic" chips are sort of like scaled down FPGA's,
aren't they?

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404111317020.20180-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...

> Can you suggest a way of programming a GAL to emulate a 74SL240 octal
> latch?  "Generic Array Logic" chips are sort of like scaled down FPGA's,
> aren't they?

Just get a CPLD. Its inbetween a GAL and an FPGA and is like the FPGA in the
sense of being reprogrammable but just little difference. From what you
said, its not that big of a deal of difference. It is all in gauge how many
Logic Elements/Logic Cells that you need and the speed. This also comes in
terms of price. I don't think you need to spend more than $30 on the chip
but I think the CPLD can be had for under $15 so you just need a tiny PCB
board and have the pins underneath to sit in where it is needed for the
socker or pinholes. (Think Piggyback board. Since the package may not
exactly be 100% pinned out in the same form factor. For example the chip may
be a 80 pin PLCC and we are using a 100 pin QFP chip with 20 inactive pins.
You may not fit a 100pin QFP directly into an 80 pin PLCC socket/holes. So
an piggyback board setup would be needed. BTW: I am not EXACTLY certain of
the number of pins and the pin package of the 74LS240 off the top of my head
so I can look it up.

"silverdr" <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote in message
news:40793c83$1@news.inet.com.pl...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>I have a Commodore PC-10 which is an XT clone.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>It is a bad understatement to call CBM's PC-10 an XT _clone_. Calling
XT
> >>>>_class_ machine is much more appropriate but calling it a clone means
> >>>>forgetting and neglecting a fact that it's got a number of features
the
> >>>>XT (and AT) including all the "clones" didn't even dream about!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Like?
> >>>
> >
> >
> > You mean the onboard stuff?
>
> Yes. Most (or even all) of those I referred to, in fact is onboard.

These proved to be a pain in the arse in the case of my PC-20 as some of the
onboard stuff could not be disabled to use newer technologies in the
expansion slots.

I ditched the damn thing and bought a standard clone.

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote ...

> > > You mean the onboard stuff?
> >
> > Yes. Most (or even all) of those I referred to, in fact is onboard.
>
> These proved to be a pain in the arse in the case of my PC-20 as some of
> the onboard stuff could not be disabled to use newer technologies in the
> expansion slots.
>
> I ditched the damn thing and bought a standard clone.

You are right about non-standard features being a pain in the rear back in
the early days.  I had an XT clone with a hard drive controller on the
motherboard.  As large hard drives were _expensive_ back then, I wanted to
reformat my 20 meg MFM drive with an RLL controller in an ISA slot and use it
as an RLL drive.

On every boot I had to load a driver that disabled the HD controller on the
MB and enabled the RLL controller.  It was a pain having to boot from floppy
all the time, but I did get a little over 35 megs out of the drive.

BTW, that machine also had a CGA on the MB, which prevented it from being
upgraded to VGA.  Bummer!

-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...

> Sam Gillett wrote:
> |> "It can't be all that hard, can it?"
> |
> |Interesting theory.  The FPGA possesses magical qualities that enable it
> |to cure all computing difficulties.
> |
> |Perhaps if he were to open the case, and install an FPGA, Matthew's Compaq
> |would stop crashing?!?
> |
> |I like the idea!    ;-)
>
> Can you suggest a way of programming a GAL to emulate a 74SL240 octal
> latch?  "Generic Array Logic" chips are sort of like scaled down FPGA's,
> aren't they?

This would only work if you can find a GAL that has the same magical
qualities as the FPGA chips found in Rick's colorful imagination.

In other words, watching "Mission Impossible" reruns on TV will help your
Compaq as much as an FPGA would.

Your Compaq is approaching the age where it would be more practical to
replace it than to fix it... unless, of course, you have a nostalgic
attachment to it.    ;-)

-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

Rick Balkins wrote:
|"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
|news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404111317020.20180-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
|
|> Can you suggest a way of programming a GAL to emulate a 74SL240 octal
|> latch?  "Generic Array Logic" chips are sort of like scaled down FPGA's,
|> aren't they?
|
|Just get a CPLD.

Does the same sort of 'script' language work with the CPLD as with the PLD?

I thought different companies authorized different scripts, purely for
the sake of keeping consumers from migrating over to some other chip?

|Its inbetween a GAL and an FPGA and is like the FPGA in the sense of
|being reprogrammable but just little difference. From what you said, its
|not that big of a deal of difference.

Well, if I wanted to save money, I could go with the ordinary 74SL240,
but the advantage of using a GAL is the difficulty it presents people
(competitors) with reverse engineering it.  As I understand it, there
is a 'programming bit' - whatever that is - that prevents reprogramming,
so unless the user knows ahead of time exactly what the GAL does, he
is 'SOL' when it comes to replacing it.

|It is all in gauge how many Logic Elements/Logic Cells that you need and
|the speed. This also comes in terms of price. I don't think you need to
|spend more than $30 on the chip but I think the CPLD can be had for
|under $15 so you just need a tiny PCB board and have the pins underneath
|to sit in where it is needed for the socker or pinholes. (Think Piggy-
|back board.

   <snip>

Can you comment on the script language used for programming the GAL
programmable logic device, and that used for programming your run of
the mill FPGA?

Sam Gillett wrote:
|In other words, watching "Mission Impossible" reruns on TV will help your
|Compaq as much as an FPGA would.

Which reminds me, do you know if "Mission Impossible" is available on DVD
yet?

|Your Compaq is approaching the age where it would be more practical to
|replace it than to fix it... unless, of course, you have a nostalgic
|attachment to it.    ;-)

I prefer my nostalgic attachment.  Unless you want to give me a free PC
to play around with?

"Sam Gillett" <samgillettnospam@diespammermsn.com> wrote in message
news:Zjkec.21923$hd3.9785@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>
> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote ...
>
> > > > You mean the onboard stuff?
> > >
> > > Yes. Most (or even all) of those I referred to, in fact is onboard.
> >
> > These proved to be a pain in the arse in the case of my PC-20 as some of
> > the onboard stuff could not be disabled to use newer technologies in the
> > expansion slots.
> >
> > I ditched the damn thing and bought a standard clone.
>
> You are right about non-standard features being a pain in the rear back in
> the early days.  I had an XT clone with a hard drive controller on the
> motherboard.  As large hard drives were _expensive_ back then, I wanted to
> reformat my 20 meg MFM drive with an RLL controller in an ISA slot and use
it
> as an RLL drive.
>
> On every boot I had to load a driver that disabled the HD controller on
the
> MB and enabled the RLL controller.  It was a pain having to boot from
floppy
> all the time, but I did get a little over 35 megs out of the drive.
>
> BTW, that machine also had a CGA on the MB, which prevented it from being
> upgraded to VGA.  Bummer!
>

I had an XT HD1.44Mb floppy controller on an 8 bit ISA card but as the PC-20
onboard floppy controller used the same IRQ I couldn't use it, and I
couldn't disable it either. Same with the onboard graphics although I did
end up finding an EGA card that worked alongside the onboard graphics except
games that autodetected the graphics adapter would often select the onboard
display and cause all sorts of problems.

Bleh, what a pain that system was.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote ...

> Sam Gillett wrote:
> |In other words, watching "Mission Impossible" reruns on TV will help your
> |Compaq as much as an FPGA would.
>
> Which reminds me, do you know if "Mission Impossible" is available on DVD
> yet?

I don't think the new movie, "Mission Impossible II" is on DVD yet.  Probably
won't be until after it's run in theaters.  However the 1996 movie is on DVD
and the 1966 TV series is available on VHS tape.  You can find out details at

www.amazon.com


-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

CPLD are types of PLDs. FPGA is another type of PLD. PLA & PAL are another
type of PLD.

PLD = Programmable Logic Device. PLD is a general category. There is even a
type of PLD called PLD (or PLA or PAL) Funny part is PLA & PAL or
essentially plain PLD but FPGA and CPLD are just a more modern and advance
form of PLD. Hence the term Programmable Logic Device (or PLD) covers all of
these types of programmable chips.Now don't get shaken up by the term CPLD
or Complex Programmable Logic Device. They are not nearly as sophisticated
FPGA but they are fairly capable.

Matthew, there is more than one way to handle "creating a core" (ok an
74SL240 latch chip) within the CPLD. Now, it really depends. You might ask
why have to do that if you can buy one of these chips. CPLDs & FPGAs and any
other Programmable Logic chip can very well be more than just processors or
controllers but any gate switch. Since a "latch" is essentially a switch
right. It is like a "gate" which can be set. How far do you want to define
Matthew.

VHDL is just one language and Verilog is another but the language is
technically independent of the hardware itself. It is just a method of
defining the hardware configuration. There are other methods to do the same
thing. It is not absolutely required but is a FAIRLY efficient way. You
could do up a diagram using standard symbols that represent specific things.
Like the symbols in a electronics diagram for example the standard symbol
for "resistor". Get the picture ????

It is not the script that matters it is the tool you use. It is not the
BASIC language that matters but the interpreter. In case of C/C++. It is not
the syntax that matters. The syntax is independent of the actual CPU but is
brought down from high level to machine level through a process which is
called the compiler. So if the compiler supports compiling to 6502
processors then it works. So it depends on the tool that synthesize VHDL or
Verilog to the given model FPGA/CPLD or whatever it may be. It depends on
that.

Verilog and VHDL are fairly portable. It is like compiling a high level
language. It is not the language that matters. It is the compiler itself.
Each company has tool to support their models of chips but many use the same
"language" like VHDL or Verilog. But the tool aka the "compiler" for the
script language. (Don't be nitpicking, it is technically NOT a compiler but
I am trying to give you the closest thing that relates in software for the
"general" understanding. VHDL describe the AND/OR but the tool is more than
the script or the script language. It is the synthesizing the script to the
hardware level. It is a significant process.

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404111659270.1598-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...

> Does the same sort of 'script' language work with the CPLD as with the
PLD?
>
> I thought different companies authorized different scripts, purely for
> the sake of keeping consumers from migrating over to some other chip?
>
> Well, if I wanted to save money, I could go with the ordinary 74SL240,
> but the advantage of using a GAL is the difficulty it presents people
> (competitors) with reverse engineering it.  As I understand it, there
> is a 'programming bit' - whatever that is - that prevents reprogramming,
> so unless the user knows ahead of time exactly what the GAL does, he
> is 'SOL' when it comes to replacing it.

CPLDs and FPGAs can be configured that way, too.

> Can you comment on the script language used for programming the GAL
> programmable logic device, and that used for programming your run of
> the mill FPGA?

Very similar but I will get into detail with that in a separate message so I
can focus precisely what you mean.

Rick Balkins wrote:
|It is not the script that matters it is the tool you use.

Fine, what if I want to write my own tool, and implement it on the C-128?
Sure, it may be slow, but who cares?  Big deal if it takes all day to
program a PAL or GAL with a C-128, it ought to be possible, shouldn't
it?

Now, I shudder to even think about *emulating* an FPGA on the C-128 -
yes, I might want to use an Amiga, Mac, or Pentium monster for that sort
of thing - but if all I am doing, is programming a PLD like a run of the
mill PAL or a GAL, why not?

Is it *that* bad of an idea to cut some kind of a PC middleman out of
the scheme of things?

"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404112152120.19118-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
> Rick Balkins wrote:
> |It is not the script that matters it is the tool you use.
>
> Fine, what if I want to write my own tool, and implement it on the C-128?
> Sure, it may be slow, but who cares?  Big deal if it takes all day to
> program a PAL or GAL with a C-128, it ought to be possible, shouldn't
> it?

On very small PLDs. Larger they are - the more it will take. Maybe a week to
a month. But a SuperCPU equipped C64 will help a bit. A C-One would be
better because you can use the JRISC to math cruch simply because the speed
of 133 MHz will be nicer than 20 MHz. You would even get 32 Bit math
optimization that you can't do as efficient and as quick with a 65c816 and
it would be worse to do on a 6502 or 8502 or any 8 bit chip.  The main core
of the program like the text editor part and the "user interface" can be
driven fine but on the C-One, if you can use the JRISC. Even if it isn't an
FPU, it is better than a 65c816 for math because it is faster.

Until the C-One is released, I suggest VERY small PLD work on the C-128 and
I suggest to equip the hardware with a SuperCPU with 16 MBYTES of SuperRAM.
My suggestion and please do yourself a favor in this - USE an HD and
possibly a RAMLink as well fully populated with 16 MBYTES as well. The HD
will help move things faster because the drive is by far mechanically faster
and heck the CMD HD can plug into the SuperCPU or is it the RAMLInk but
doesn't matter.

> Now, I shudder to even think about *emulating* an FPGA on the C-128 -
> yes, I might want to use an Amiga, Mac, or Pentium monster for that sort
> of thing - but if all I am doing, is programming a PLD like a run of the
> mill PAL or a GAL, why not?
>
> Is it *that* bad of an idea to cut some kind of a PC middleman out of
> the scheme of things?

Well, you could do without a PC but I suggest to get the C-One when it comes
out to do the work or an AMIGA or a Mac if you don't want the PC. But if you
don't want AMIGA or Mac and want something that is most Commodore-ish. I
would suggest the C-One as for the main options available or soon to be
available. The C-One would simply has more power and capability to do this
than a typical 8 Bit Commodore. It is NOT the 65c816 that really matters but
a computer is more than just the CPU. This is why an SNES in some ways can
do certainly things FASTER than a C-64 than a SuperCPU. If you had the
additional I/O and other stuff and a 20 MHz 65c816 with the SNES chipset.
The chipset will have an adverse effect of the system beyond what the CPU
does by itself.

C-One may in some aspects be a multi-CPU system with the JRISC present.

Rick Balkins wrote:
|"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
|news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0404112152120.19118-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
|> Rick Balkins wrote:
|> |It is not the script that matters it is the tool you use.
|>
|> Fine, what if I want to write my own tool, and implement it on the C-128?
|> Sure, it may be slow, but who cares?  Big deal if it takes all day to
|> program a PAL or GAL with a C-128, it ought to be possible, shouldn't
|> it?
|
|On very small PLDs.

Okay, let's talk about small PLDs, then, how would YOU go about doing
that on a platform as small as a C-128?

|Larger they are - the more it will take.

Yeah, well, no dispute from me on that front.  Let's not talk about the
larger ones, I won't be getting one, anyway.  The smaller ones are less
expensive, aren't they?

||> Rick Balkins wrote:
||> |It is not the script that matters it is the tool you use.
||>
||> Fine, what if I want to write my own tool, and implement it on the C-128?
||> Sure, it may be slow, but who cares?  Big deal if it takes all day to
||> program a PAL or GAL with a C-128, it ought to be possible, shouldn't
||> it?
||
||On very small PLDs.
|
|Okay, let's talk about small PLDs, then, how would YOU go about doing
|that on a platform as small as a C-128?

I think I need to add an observation or two about Programmable Logic
Devices.  If Rick can correct me on this, I would greatly appreciate
it.

It is my understanding that you have a certain number of input pins,
and they are all going to be transistor-to-transistor-level logic.
So, unlike an FPGA which contemplates voltage levels outside GND
and +5 vdc, it will be safe to say that a PLD accepts +5 or GND
on any of its I/O pins.  Oh, sure, there is going to be a Vcc for
reference, and if we are really lucky, there might even be a clock
signal for input, too, right, but nothing too crazy.

And then there are these dozens upon dozens of 'macrocells' inside
the PLD, that is, if they behave at all like the GAL that Lattice
Semiconductor Corporation manufactures.

But the problem I am running into, is that there seems to be some
kind of proprietary secret behind setting any particular macrocell
one way or the other.  The idea behind the array of macrocells has
to be very similar to the array of gates in an FPGA, or am I mistaken?

|It is my understanding that you have a certain number of input pins,
|and they are all going to be transistor-to-transistor-level logic.
|So, unlike an FPGA which contemplates voltage levels outside GND
|and +5 vdc, it will be safe to say that a PLD accepts +5 or GND
|on any of its I/O pins.  Oh, sure, there is going to be a Vcc for
|reference, and if we are really lucky, there might even be a clock
|signal for input, too, right, but nothing too crazy.
|
|And then there are these dozens upon dozens of 'macrocells' inside
|the PLD, that is, if they behave at all like the GAL that Lattice
|Semiconductor Corporation manufactures.

For instance, I have the data sheet to Lattice's GAL 16LV8 in my hands.
There are 64x32 cells inside this strange beast, and there ought to be
a way of figuring out what, exactly, can be made to happen inside it,
and then as it happens, display it to the user on the C-128 80 column
screen, maybe using PETASCII (PETSCI) graphics characters to represent
a pretty big portion of the array at any one time, and then scroll
around a little bit - one way or the other - to look at it.

||And then there are these dozens upon dozens of 'macrocells' inside
||the PLD, that is, if they behave at all like the GAL that Lattice
||Semiconductor Corporation manufactures.
|
|For instance, I have the data sheet to Lattice's GAL 16LV8 in my hands.
|There are 64x32 cells inside this strange beast, and there ought to be
|a way of figuring out what, exactly, can be made to happen inside it,
|and then as it happens, display it to the user on the C-128 80 column
|screen, maybe using PETASCII (PETSCI) graphics characters to represent
|a pretty big portion of the array at any one time, and then scroll
|around a little bit - one way or the other - to look at it.

Now, detailing a project like that is exactly what would have been
perfect for Transactor magazine, unlike that awful 'fluff' stuff you
found in magazines like Run or Ahoy.

||And then there are these dozens upon dozens of 'macrocells' inside
||the PLD, that is, if they behave at all like the GAL that Lattice
||Semiconductor Corporation manufactures.
|
|For instance, I have the data sheet to Lattice's GAL 16LV8 in my hands.
|There are 64x32 cells inside this strange beast, and there ought to be
|a way of figuring out what, exactly, can be made to happen inside it,
|and then as it happens, display it to the user on the C-128 80 column
|screen, maybe using PETASCII (PETSCI) graphics characters to represent
|a pretty big portion of the array at any one time, and then scroll
|around a little bit - one way or the other - to look at it.

Regarding the data sheet to the GAL 16LV8, right there in the middle of
page 3, Lattice informs us:

   Software compilers support the three different global OLMC
   modes as different device types.  These device types are
   listed in the table below.  Most compilers have the ability
   to automatically select the device type, generally based on
   the register usage and output enable usage.  Register usage
   on the device forces the software to choose the registered
   mode.  All combinatorial outputs with OE controlled by the
   product term will force the software to choose the complex
   mode.  The software will choose the simple mode only when
   all outputs are dedicated combinatorial without OE control.
   The different device types listed in the table [at the bottom
   of page 3] can be used to override the automatic device
   selection by the software.  For further details, refer to
   the compiler software manuals.

Now, if we want to write our own compiler for the GAL16LV8, how would
we go about doing that?  I don't want to have to buy a PC or Mac just to
put this amazing chip to good use!  Ordinary people with 8 bit computers
should have the chance to program these chips.  People should not be
suckered into buying 80x86 machines just to use chips from Lattice
Corporation.

Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> says...

>Now, if we want to write our own compiler for the GAL16LV8, how would
>we go about doing that?  I don't want to have to buy a PC or Mac just to
>put this amazing chip to good use!  Ordinary people with 8 bit computers
>should have the chance to program these chips.  People should not be
>suckered into buying 80x86 machines just to use chips from Lattice
>Corporation.

It's hard enough getting vendors to support Macintosh and Linux.
I don't see much hope of them supporting Commodore.  I have a C128D
and use it on a daily basis (60% CP/M Mode, 30% C128 mode, 10% C64 
mode) and I use Slackware Linux a lot, but as a professional embedded
hardware and software developer, I need to run DOS (FreeDOS, not
MS-DOS) and Windows.  I got a sweet Compaq Proliant server with four 
CPUs, six hard drives and 3GB of RAM on eBay for around $300, and I
picked up several 486 boxes at a local computer swap meet for $5 each,
and got my software licenses for free from an employer who was dumping 
NT, ME,and 2K so that he could "upgrade" to XP, so being able to run 
DOS and Windows isn't all that expensive.


-- 
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire. 
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you 
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like 
Doc Brown can solve?  My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/ 

Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> says...

>Now, if we want to write our own compiler for the GAL16LV8, how would
>we go about doing that?  I don't want to have to buy a PC or Mac just to
>put this amazing chip to good use!  Ordinary people with 8 bit computers
>should have the chance to program these chips.  People should not be
>suckered into buying 80x86 machines just to use chips from Lattice
>Corporation.

It's hard enough getting vendors to support Macintosh and Linux.
I don't see much hope of them supporting Commodore.  I have a C128D
and use it on a daily basis (60% CP/M Mode, 30% C128 mode, 10% C64 
mode) and I use Slackware Linux a lot, but as a professional embedded
hardware and software developer, I need to run DOS (FreeDOS, not
MS-DOS) and Windows.  I got a sweet Compaq Proliant server with four 
CPUs, six hard drives and 3GB of RAM on eBay for around $300, and I
picked up several 486 boxes at a local computer swap meet for $5 each,
and got my software licenses for free from an employer who was dumping 
NT, ME,and 2K so that he could "upgrade" to XP, so being able to run 
DOS and Windows isn't all that expensive.


-- 
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire. 
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you 
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like 
Doc Brown can solve?  My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/ 

Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> 
.... snip ...
> 
> Now, if we want to write our own compiler for the GAL16LV8, how
> would we go about doing that?  I don't want to have to buy a PC or
> Mac just to put this amazing chip to good use!  Ordinary people
> with 8 bit computers should have the chance to program these chips.
> People should not be suckered into buying 80x86 machines just to
> use chips from Lattice Corporation.

Your Commodore is worth more as an antique today than a used 486
machine, which will run all that software, and also run rings
around the Commodore.  You don't even have to use any Microsoft
software.  Look up freeDos and Linux.

-- 
fix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2.
to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences
that are worse than the original problem.  Usage: "Windows ME
fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". - Hutchison

Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0404121247370.24346-100000@lab.oregonvos.net>...
> ||And then there are these dozens upon dozens of 'macrocells' inside
> ||the PLD, that is, if they behave at all like the GAL that Lattice
> ||Semiconductor Corporation manufactures.
> |
> |For instance, I have the data sheet to Lattice's GAL 16LV8 in my hands.
> |There are 64x32 cells inside this strange beast, and there ought to be
> |a way of figuring out what, exactly, can be made to happen inside it,
> |and then as it happens, display it to the user on the C-128 80 column
> |screen, maybe using PETASCII (PETSCI) graphics characters to represent
> |a pretty big portion of the array at any one time, and then scroll
> |around a little bit - one way or the other - to look at it.
> 
> Regarding the data sheet to the GAL 16LV8, right there in the middle of
> page 3, Lattice informs us:
> 
>    Software compilers support the three different global OLMC
>    modes as different device types.  These device types are
>    listed in the table below.  Most compilers have the ability
>    to automatically select the device type, generally based on
>    the register usage and output enable usage.  Register usage
>    on the device forces the software to choose the registered
>    mode.  All combinatorial outputs with OE controlled by the
>    product term will force the software to choose the complex
>    mode.  The software will choose the simple mode only when
>    all outputs are dedicated combinatorial without OE control.
>    The different device types listed in the table [at the bottom
>    of page 3] can be used to override the automatic device
>    selection by the software.  For further details, refer to
>    the compiler software manuals.
> 
> Now, if we want to write our own compiler for the GAL16LV8, how would
> we go about doing that?  I don't want to have to buy a PC or Mac just to
> put this amazing chip to good use!  Ordinary people with 8 bit computers
> should have the chance to program these chips.  People should not be
> suckered into buying 80x86 machines just to use chips from Lattice
> Corporation.

Remind me, please: what year is it?

Can you still buy GAL16V8s any more?

--a

Andy Peters <Bassman59a@yahoo.com> says...

>Remind me, please: what year is it?
>
>Can you still buy GAL16V8s any more?

You are replying to a discussion about using a Commodore 64 to 
program a chip and your only question is whether the chip is obsolete?

-- 
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire. 
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you 
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like 
Doc Brown can solve?  My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/ 

   (comp.sys.cbm snipped)

Guy Macon wrote:
|Matthew Montchalin <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> says...
|
|>Now, if we want to write our own compiler for the GAL16LV8, how would
|>we go about doing that?  I don't want to have to buy a PC or Mac just to
|>put this amazing chip to good use!  Ordinary people with 8 bit computers
|>should have the chance to program these chips.  People should not be
|>suckered into buying 80x86 machines just to use chips from Lattice
|>Corporation.
|
|It's hard enough getting vendors to support Macintosh and Linux.

Okay.

|I don't see much hope of them supporting Commodore.

Nope.

|I have a C128D and use it on a daily basis (60% CP/M Mode, 30% C128
|mode, 10% C64 mode)

My brother has an EPROM from a Z80 board he needs to disassemble.

Can you suggest a handy one that does the trick?

|and I use Slackware Linux a lot, but as a professional embedded
|hardware and software developer, I need to run DOS (FreeDOS, not MS-DOS)
|and Windows.  I got a sweet Compaq Proliant server with four CPUs, six
|hard drives and 3GB of RAM on eBay for around $300, and I picked up
|several 486 boxes at a local computer swap meet for $5 each, and got my
|software licenses for free from an employer who was dumping NT, ME,and
|2K so that he could "upgrade" to XP, so being able to run DOS and
|Windows isn't all that expensive.

I didn't say it was expensive, I just said that I am curious how a
person would go about writing a compiler that would do the trick.

Fine, what if I had a PC, how would I go about writing a compiler
for the GAL 16LV8?  -I don't want to use somebody else's compiler,
I just want to write my own.  Let's say I am going to use ordinary
8086 assembly language (insofar as it makes more sense than 'C' does).

How would I go about doing it?

Of course, I don't want to write an emulator.  Something like that
probably WOULD need a Pentium.

Guy Macon wrote:
|Andy Peters <Bassman59a@yahoo.com> says...
|
|>Remind me, please: what year is it?
|>
|>Can you still buy GAL16V8s any more?
|
|You are replying to a discussion about using a Commodore 64 to
|program a chip and your only question is whether the chip is obsolete?

My point being, if I can figure out the GAL16LV8, I ought to be able
to work my way up to the more complex ones.  They are just a whole
lot more macrocells, aren't they?

> My point being, if I can figure out the GAL16LV8, I ought to be able
> to work my way up to the more complex ones.  They are just a whole
> lot more macrocells, aren't they?

Well, yes - and a Saturn V is just a large bottle rocket.

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message news:<feWdncW3LfPbC-Hd4p2dnA@speakeasy.net>...
> Andy Peters <Bassman59a@yahoo.com> says...
> 
> >Remind me, please: what year is it?
> >
> >Can you still buy GAL16V8s any more?
> 
> You are replying to a discussion about using a Commodore 64 to 
> program a chip and your only question is whether the chip is obsolete?

Your point is duly noted :)

-a