| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332281 is a reply to message #332212] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 07:39   |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <o0emed$4ht$1@news.albasani.net>,
> dave.g4ugm@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On 14/11/2016 22:33, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 9:12:40 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> I remember talking to the suit who taught web
>>>> design at the local community college. His
>>>> response to the criticism that the web sites he
>>>> designed were bloated was "You're just
>>>> bandwidth-challenged". I really wanted to
>>>> strangle him with his tie.
>>>
>>> I never heard that. However, I've seen _many_ computer geeks, especially
>>> young ones, attempt to use every feature they could in their programming;
>>> they loved "bell and whistles". A new version of Java comes out and
>>> they can't wait to add the latest. Unfortunately, those of us with
>>> older PCs and browsers get screwed by that mindset.
>>>
>>> (FWIW, as often mentioned, IBM maintain backward compatibility in the
>>> mainframe world for _decades_ after a product became obsolete. Microsoft
>>> gives about five years. Of course, that forces customers to buy new
>>> hardware and new M/S products. Intel and M/S come out ahead.)
>>>
>>
>> IBM are just as bad (If not worse) than Microsoft for forced upgrades.
>> Because the totally control hardware and software they can, and do force
>> sites that want support to constantly upgrade both hardware and
>> software. Look at the zVM support table here:-
>>
>> http://www.vm.ibm.com/techinfo/lpmigr/vmleos.html
>>
>> you can see a typical OS only gets 4 years of support. Unlike Microsoft
>> there is no extended support. When you compare this with the hardware
>> table then you find you are upgrading hardware over the same interval...
>>
>> Dave.
>
> Your average mainframe site has system
> programmers and every mainframe installation is
> to some extent customized. Lack of official
> "support" is not that much of an issue.
>
Yes it is. At PPOE we got ourselves into a knot by not being up to date. We
bought a new mainframe and needed to jump forward a couple of OS versions -
we discovered there was no direct upgrade so we had to install an
intermediate release on a temporary system so we could upgrade. Then
there's the issue of other software: this release of DB2 requires _that_
release of the OS that requires _this_ release of VTAM, etc.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332282 is a reply to message #332255] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 07:39 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <op.yqyx0krmmsr2db@dell3100.dlink.com>, admin@
> 127.0.0.1 says...
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:57:14 -0000, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <1746364529.500901745.408508.peter_flass-
>>> yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> peter_flass@yahoo.com says...
>>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > In article <e8uqhkFo73nU5@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> > news0006@eager.cx says...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 15:47:41 -0500, Michael Black wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2016, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> In article <PM0005412FCAECCD51 @aca48072.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> >>>> See.above@aol.com says...
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> In article <0b5b8f61-0334-4fc5-bf8a-
>>>> 19e8d11be5ce@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> >>>>>> jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says...
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 4:48:07 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> It's 2016--all the average person needs to do to have access
>>>> to a
>>>> >>>>>>>> Linux system is to plug a keyboard and mouse into the USB
>>>> ports on
>>>> >>>>>>>> their television set and figure out what magic combination to
>>>> hit
>>>> >>>>>>>> on the remote to get to the developer prompt.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> That isn't something one could "figure out", one would have to
>>>> find
>>>> >>>>>>> it on
>>>> >>>>> the
>>>> >>>>>>> Internet somewhere. And in general such appliances wouldn't
>>>> have a
>>>> >>>>>>> *full*
>>>> >>>>> Linux
>>>> >>>>>>> system, or enough internal storage to be able to use it as a
>>>> >>>>>>> computer
>>>> >>>>> without
>>>> >>>>>>> interfering with their normal function.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> You've never encountered a Linux prompt unintentionally while
>>>> setting
>>>> >>>>>> up a television, have you?
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> But you, like everyone else, seem to be determined to miss the
>>>> point.
>>>> >>>>>> Significant computing power is so cheap these days that MONITORS
>>>> can
>>>> >>>>>> run some flavor of Linux.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> So where is the incentive to pay to use a CPU on the other end of
>>>> >>>>>> someone else's wire for general computing tasks?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Anyone who can't afford to buy a computer. I looked at prices
>>>> last
>>>> >>>>> month and was shocked. Average price was $800 or a non-Apple PC.
>>>> >>>>> There has to be too much gear on those systems.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> /BAH
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> OK, what's the going price for a new-in-box current-production dumb
>>>> >>>> terminal today?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>> Do they still make those?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I would think it's just cheaper to use a computer of some sort, with
>>>> >>> software that just boots to a terminal program of some sort.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Or this:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://www.sparetimegizmos.com/Hardware/VT.htm
>>>> >
>>>> > Which is fine for somebody who has a VAX in his
>>>> > basement that he wants to play with, but how do
>>>> > you connect it to a machine accessible via the
>>>> > Internet?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Serial port into your PC?
>>>
>>> If you have a PC then why do you need to use a
>>> dumb terminal to access another machine across
>>> the Internet? Why not just use the PC? And if
>>> you have the PC why not use _it_ instead of some
>>> other machine across the Internet?
>>>
>>> Life would be so much easier if people would
>>> read the damned thread before commenting.
>>>
>>
>> Are you Rod Speed?
>
> Why? Because I get annoyed when someone asks a
> question that has no relevance to anything that
> has gone before in the thread?
>
Maybe you're using a terminal because you _want_ to use a damn terminal.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332283 is a reply to message #332216] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 07:39 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Michael Black wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> maus wrote:
>>>> On 2016-11-13, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> > J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> >> In article <0b5b8f61-0334-4fc5-bf8a-
>>>> >> 19e8d11be5ce@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> >> jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says...
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 4:48:07 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (oversnipped. expensive laptops)
>>>>
>>>> Lidl, local lowcost supermarket, last month, acceptable laptop, 350 euros
> .
>>>> You are looking in the wrong places
>>>>
>>> Even Sam's Club's prices were 3 times more than what I paid for my last
>>> PC (~2010). I was simply surprised and decided that the difference was
> comm.
>>> Some of those systems didn't have a CD device.
>>>
>> I just got a refurbished computer last Monday, it has a date on it of
>> 2011. I paid $350 for it, including taxes. It has an i7 quad core with
>> hyperthreading running at 3.4GHz, 8gigs of ram and a 500g hard drive. One
>> reason I went with refurbished (it doesn't look used, nice and clean)
>> besides price was it had a parallel port (so I can still use my HP 4P
>> laser printer without adding any adapters) and two serial ports (which I
>> don't have much use for now, but was annoyed when I still had dial up and
>> only one serial port, there are things floating around that still use
>> serial) and ps/2 connectors so I can use any old keyboard (which is more
>> likely to be more solid than the available USB keyboards) and that
>> trackball I got at a garage sale for 75cents that only does PS/2. And it
>> does have a DVD drive, though this is the first desktop computer Iv'e ever
>> had that doesn't do floppy discs off the bat (though I have a couple of
>> bought cheap at garage sale USB floppy drives, for this occasion).
>>
>> It's overkill, a combination of putting money aside as I waited to decide,
>> and also "because I can". I don't have need for such overkill, but I
>> decided to splurge, and this should last some time. I am also curious
>> about running more than one core.
>>
>> But the same place had a variety of refurbished computers, from dual core
>> on up, with prices over the same range. And they had piles of each, so
>> there is an awful lot out there.
>
> There was a place like that here but they closed last year. The owners
> even knew the word "DEC" ;-)
>
>>
>> I even got two dual core 15" laptops, with 2gigs of RAM and about 2.4GHz
>> clock speed, from about a decade ago, both for five dollars back in the
>> spring. I figure I'll put Windows on one of them, and use with external
>> monitor and keyboard, so I can run some encyclopedias and that complete
>> National Geographic set, and that complete Rolling Stone set that have
>> been waiting around for a WIndows computer. The laptops take up so little
>> space, I can afford to make one Windows only for the purpose.
>>
>> One thing, I'm not seeing much in the way of computers at garage or
>> rummage sales now. I guess they are going to Craig's list and the like,
>> or ewaste recyclers, but also we've reached a point where computers are
>> pretty good, so I suspect people aren't upgrading as much as they used to.
>
> I think they're getting tossed in the garbage. Second hand stores
> won't accept computer hardware for donations. They view computer
> hardware like they do CRT TVs.
>
Yes, I finally had to scrap a 9-track tape drive a couple of years ago, I
offered it for free in a couple of places and no one was interested. Darn
thing cost me $70 on eBay, too. ($5 plus $65 shipping)
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332284 is a reply to message #332258] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 07:39 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <o0g1cp$vsq$1@news.albasani.net>,
> dave.g4ugm@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On 15/11/2016 11:49, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <o0emed$4ht$1@news.albasani.net>,
>>> dave.g4ugm@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 14/11/2016 22:33, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> > On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 9:12:40 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I remember talking to the suit who taught web
>>>> >> design at the local community college. His
>>>> >> response to the criticism that the web sites he
>>>> >> designed were bloated was "You're just
>>>> >> bandwidth-challenged". I really wanted to
>>>> >> strangle him with his tie.
>>>> >
>>>> > I never heard that. However, I've seen _many_ computer geeks, especially
>>>> > young ones, attempt to use every feature they could in their programming;
>>>> > they loved "bell and whistles". A new version of Java comes out and
>>>> > they can't wait to add the latest. Unfortunately, those of us with
>>>> > older PCs and browsers get screwed by that mindset.
>>>> >
>>>> > (FWIW, as often mentioned, IBM maintain backward compatibility in the
>>>> > mainframe world for _decades_ after a product became obsolete. Microsoft
>>>> > gives about five years. Of course, that forces customers to buy new
>>>> > hardware and new M/S products. Intel and M/S come out ahead.)
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> IBM are just as bad (If not worse) than Microsoft for forced upgrades.
>>>> Because the totally control hardware and software they can, and do force
>>>> sites that want support to constantly upgrade both hardware and
>>>> software. Look at the zVM support table here:-
>>>>
>>>> http://www.vm.ibm.com/techinfo/lpmigr/vmleos.html
>>>>
>>>> you can see a typical OS only gets 4 years of support. Unlike Microsoft
>>>> there is no extended support. When you compare this with the hardware
>>>> table then you find you are upgrading hardware over the same interval...
>>>>
>>>> Dave.
>>>
>>> Your average mainframe site has system
>>> programmers and every mainframe installation is
>>> to some extent customized. Lack of official
>>> "support" is not that much of an issue.
>>>
>> What use is a SysProg when you no longer have the source?
>
> What, does IBM come in with a search warrant and
> find all your copies of the source when they
> drop support?
You're a few years out of date - almost everything is no "object code
only". For a couple of years I managed to patch the system using old
microfiche and a disassembler, but that got too dicy.
>
>> IBM stop hardware maintenance on old kit and
> third party support is now
>> a challenge as IBM is no longer covered by Anti Trust.
>>
>> I follow the IBM main list and this is an issue for many sites...
>>
>> Dave
>
>
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332286 is a reply to message #332228] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 09:21 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
> powered on tv this morning ... and it had little box on the side saying
> new system had been automatically loaded. got it before on cellphones
> and tablets, but this is first time got it for TV.
>
Where did it get the new code to load? If the answer is cable, how
did the cable company know your TV needed new code? Or was the
"new system" a download of station channel info?
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332287 is a reply to message #332254] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 09:21 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <PM00054157BFD6EBF0
> @aca4168a.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
> says...
>>
>> maus wrote:
>>> On 2016-11-14, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> > In article <PM0005412FCAECCD51
>>>> > @aca48072.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
>>>> > says...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> >> > In article <0b5b8f61-0334-4fc5-bf8a-
>>>> >> > 19e8d11be5ce@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> >> > jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says...
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 4:48:07 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke
wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > OK, what's the going price for a new-in-box
>>>> > current-production dumb terminal today?
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea. It seems that one cannot buy a simple
>>>> PC these days. It has to have multi-cores, tons of
>>>> comm and no CD device. I was simply very surprised.
>>>>
>>>> /BAH
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> YOU DONT NEED A CD DEVICE!..
>>> its USb all the way down now.
>>
>> Not if I want to play games. However, the brick'nmortar stores
>> are starting to not sell a variety of PC games.
>
> ??? What kind of games need a CD? Google
> "Steam".
I need a CD device to install the games I buy at the store.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332288 is a reply to message #332286] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 09:36 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> powered on tv this morning ... and it had little box on the side saying
>> new system had been automatically loaded. got it before on cellphones
>> and tablets, but this is first time got it for TV.
>>
> Where did it get the new code to load? If the answer is cable, how
> did the cable company know your TV needed new code? Or was the
> "new system" a download of station channel info?
For the last decade or so, TV's have connected to the internet via
either wireless or wired ethernet.
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332289 is a reply to message #332288] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 10:25 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 7:36:59 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> For the last decade or so, TV's have connected to the internet via
> either wireless or wired ethernet.
That doesn't answer the obvious question. A connection to the Internet is
something one normally has to pay money to get. If one hasn't connected the TV
set to one's home computer network, put a SIM card into it for a cell phone
account with a data plan, registered it with the cable company so that the TV
set acts as its own set-top box...
did the manufacturer build an Iridium gizmo into it, or is it using one's
Internet connection in a surreptitious manner, or are TV stations including
firmware updates in their vertical blanking interval... except, of course, with
digital TV, they don't have those any more.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332295 is a reply to message #331293] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 11:10 |
Renaissance
Messages: 49
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Il 12/11/2016 17.39, Huge ha scritto:
>> Why (oh why) do people ("friends") think "oh you know about
>> computers, you can fix my PC/laptop for free".
> "Sure, I'll fix your computer if you install my new bathroom(*)."
> (* Adjust according to relevant skills of neighbour.)
(Y)
bye G.L.
--
Da i.d.c.tutela:
P.S. Quando ci sarà lo switch-off, avrò problemi anche col
monitor del PC? Ho visto che è collegato in modalità analogica.
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332296 is a reply to message #332289] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 11:37 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 7:36:59 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> For the last decade or so, TV's have connected to the internet via
>> either wireless or wired ethernet.
>
> That doesn't answer the obvious question. A connection to the Internet is
> something one normally has to pay money to get. If one hasn't connected the TV
> set to one's home computer network, put a SIM card into it for a cell phone
> account with a data plan, registered it with the cable company so that the TV
> set acts as its own set-top box...
The TV, if it has access to the internet, will poll a TV manufacturer
server periodically to determine if new firmware for the TV is available.
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332297 is a reply to message #332281] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 11:48 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Yes it is. At PPOE we got ourselves into a knot by not being up to
> date. We bought a new mainframe and needed to jump forward a couple of
> OS versions - we discovered there was no direct upgrade so we had to
> install an intermediate release on a temporary system so we could
> upgrade. Then there's the issue of other software: this release of DB2
> requires _that_ release of the OS that requires _this_ release of
> VTAM, etc.
I've mentioned before the senior engineer that got a talk scheduled in a
late 80s, annual, internal, worldwide, communcation group conference
supposedly on 3174 performance, but opened his talk with the statement
that the communication group was going to be responsible for the demise
of the disk division. The issue was that the communication group was
vigorously fighting off client/server and distributed computing trying
to preserve its dumb (emulated) terminal paradigm and install base. The
disk division was seeing data fleeing the datacenter to more distributed
computing friendly platforms with drop in disk sales (few short years
later, the company has gone into the red and was being reorganized
into the 13 "baby blues" in preparation for breakup of the company).
In any case, a decade earlier, he had written a case study analysis
("THE WAY IT IS PUT TOGETHER......A FIELD PERSPECTIVE") of several
customer experiences. One wanted to change a shop floor controller from
leased line to dial line. This required a new level of NCP/3705, which
then required a new release of VTAM, when then required a new release of
MVS (along with new releases of IMS and other products). Any glitch in
production work with this massive change ... required a lengthy shutdown
to reverse the process:
The Large Conglomerate
In 1975, a large international conglomerate customer accepted the idea
that it was possible to use IBM 3600 banking systems in a manufacturing
shop floor environment. As a result, the IBM team and customer
installed what was to be the second MVS SNA system in the world. The
system (hardware and software) was installed by four people and was
on-line in 10 weeks. While the effort required 300 to 400 hours
overtime by each of the four people, the numerous problems that were
experienced were generally regarded as unique and isolated situations.
Based on post-installation experiences, the customer and the IBM team no
longer hold that belief; the change in attitude gradually occurred as
various situations developed.
After the above system had been installed for several months, the 3600
system was enhanced to support dial lines as well as leased lines. This
announcement was particularly attractive to the customer since it had
two remote 3600 systems that each required 1000 mile leased lines which
were only used for 30 minutes (maximum) a day. After investigation, it
was determined that the customer would have to change the level of
microcode in the 3600 controller to obtain the new function.
This required the customer to
reassemble his 3600 application programs (APBs)
reassemble his 3600 SYSGENS (CPGENs)
install and use the new microcode
use a new level of 3600 starter diskette.
However, the new level of microcode required a new level of Subsystem
Support Services (SSS) and Program Validation Services (PVS).
The new level of SSS required a new level of VTAM.
The new level of VTAM required
a new level of NCP
reassembly of the customer written VTAM programs.
.... and on it went ...
Conclusion:
Despite assertions of SNA layering and flexibility, IBM communication
products lack any semblance of autonomy. Experience has shown that such
software must exhibit autonomy/isolation characteristics for usability.
This autonomy is not provided by the SCD product line. IBM is
revisiting this fact as the IBM U.K. RESPOND network migrates from its
highly autonomous CON/370 network interface to a VTAM based network.
.... snip ...
past posts mentioning dumb terminal paradigm and/or the presentation
about communication group being responsible for the demise of disk
division (and customers fleeing IBM datacenter)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#terminal
past posts getting to play disk engineer in bldgs 14&15
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#disk
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332299 is a reply to message #331293] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 12:30 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 9:08 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <o0ghs2$upl$1@dont-email.me>,
>> dave.garland@wizinfo.com says...
>>>
>>> On 11/15/2016 8:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <o0g3oa$rog$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> dave.garland@wizinfo.com says...
>>>
>>>> > Actually, neither of my (LCD) TVs have a USB jack. They still work
>>>> > fine as TVs (though one of them has an antenna input that for whatever
>>>> > reason doesn't work for OTA SD broadcasts, so it needs to be fed
>>>> > through an old digital converter box). It's not a problem for me, in
>>>> > any case. It's when I grab a show for somebody else whose TV may or
>>>> > may not have a USB input or HDMI. It might just have RCA plug inputs.
>>>> > How do you just "plug a laptop" into a Type-F coax or RCA jack?
>>>>
>>>> If that's a real concern for you you use a 20
>>>> buck VGA to NTSC converter.
>>>
>>> Why would I spend 20 bucks on somebody else's TV. That's pig ignorant.
>>
>> I dunno. You're the one who wants to watch the
>> movies on the antique TV.
>
> What part of "grab a show for somebody else" do you not understand?
>
> Why would you want to
>> watch a movie on an antique TV instead of a
>> computer anyway?
>
> It's not an antique. And I very rarely watch movies. When I do, it's usually
> on my computer. But... because I don't want to sit at a desk to watch? I
> don't want my computer in the living room, I want it in my office. There's a
> netbook running linux connected to one of the TV inputs, but that's mostly
> there as a server.
>
>>>> > I guess it's nice for the Chinese economy to know that planned
>>>> > obsolescence is well and good. Me, I find it's economic sense to stay
>>>> > with the trailing edge, and let the fools with money to burn take the
>>>> > first plunge. After it's matured for 10 years, I'll have a look.
>>>>
>>>> On the one hand, you claim that "after it's
>>>> mature for 10 years, I'll have a look", on the
>>>> other you claim to have an LCD TV with no
>>>> digital tuner.
>>>>
>>>> ?????
>>>>
>>> Apparently you have problems with reading comprehension, in spades. I
>>> didn't say that the TV didn't have a digital tuner. I said that the TV
>>> didn't receive SD broadcasts via the antenna connector. Could be
>>> something wrong with the tuner. It picks up a few HD channels via the
>>> HD antenna connector. Works otherwise, why would I piss money into it?
>>
>> I guess I assumed that you meant HD. You know
>> why the TV doesn't recieve SD broadcast by the
>> antenna connector? Because there aren't any.
>> Not in the US anyway.
>
> You mean, it's all digital? Sure, but it's not all 1080i HD, at least OTA.
> There's more money in subdividing the channel into 6 or 8 subchannels. I
> don't know what resolutions they deliver to the cable companies, I suppose
> that could be all HD. As you probably figured out from "OTA" and "antenna", I
> don't have cable, I already get 30 free (mostly sub)channels that rarely have
> anything I want to watch, paying good money to expand that to 200 would be a
> waste.
>
> I think I can pick up 2 channels with the HD antenna (separate connector and
> rabbit ears). I can pick up 30 running through the cheap digital-analog
> converter.
>
>> Still, you claim you'll wait 10 years before you
>> try a new technology, so how long had LCD TVs
>> been on the market when you got this one?
>
> I dunno, according to wikipedia they came to market in 1983, about the time I
> bought my first CP/M computer. I got this one (being tossed out by a friend)
> in maybe 2012. So.. 29 years? Some new tech isn't worth rushing to try. I had
> a LCD monitor earlier than that, the savings in desk space was worth it even
> though the CRT worked better for lower res use (to make things bigger on the
> screen).
>
My mother had an LCD tv set, it was "ready for DTV". Which meant it lacked
the tuner for DTV, the display was good enough and it had jacks to plug in
a tuner. It was bought about ten years ago. But we had it different here
in Canada, where the switch was in 2011 rather than the 2009 in the US.
There didn't seem to be a mandate that TVs sold after a certain time had
to be DTV capable. SO there was a period when there were TVs and DVD
recorders (I was looking at those at one point) that couldn't be used
alone for DTV.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332302 is a reply to message #332297] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 13:50 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Yes it is. At PPOE we got ourselves into a knot by not being up to
>> date. We bought a new mainframe and needed to jump forward a couple of
>> OS versions - we discovered there was no direct upgrade so we had to
>> install an intermediate release on a temporary system so we could
>> upgrade. Then there's the issue of other software: this release of DB2
>> requires _that_ release of the OS that requires _this_ release of
>> VTAM, etc.
>
> I've mentioned before the senior engineer that got a talk scheduled in a
> late 80s, annual, internal, worldwide, communcation group conference
> supposedly on 3174 performance, but opened his talk with the statement
> that the communication group was going to be responsible for the demise
> of the disk division. The issue was that the communication group was
> vigorously fighting off client/server and distributed computing trying
> to preserve its dumb (emulated) terminal paradigm and install base. The
> disk division was seeing data fleeing the datacenter to more distributed
> computing friendly platforms with drop in disk sales (few short years
> later, the company has gone into the red and was being reorganized
> into the 13 "baby blues" in preparation for breakup of the company).
>
> In any case, a decade earlier, he had written a case study analysis
> ("THE WAY IT IS PUT TOGETHER......A FIELD PERSPECTIVE") of several
> customer experiences. One wanted to change a shop floor controller from
> leased line to dial line. This required a new level of NCP/3705, which
> then required a new release of VTAM, when then required a new release of
> MVS (along with new releases of IMS and other products). Any glitch in
> production work with this massive change ... required a lengthy shutdown
> to reverse the process:
>
> The Large Conglomerate
>
> In 1975, a large international conglomerate customer accepted the idea
> that it was possible to use IBM 3600 banking systems in a manufacturing
> shop floor environment. As a result, the IBM team and customer
> installed what was to be the second MVS SNA system in the world. The
> system (hardware and software) was installed by four people and was
> on-line in 10 weeks. While the effort required 300 to 400 hours
> overtime by each of the four people, the numerous problems that were
> experienced were generally regarded as unique and isolated situations.
> Based on post-installation experiences, the customer and the IBM team no
> longer hold that belief; the change in attitude gradually occurred as
> various situations developed.
>
> After the above system had been installed for several months, the 3600
> system was enhanced to support dial lines as well as leased lines. This
> announcement was particularly attractive to the customer since it had
> two remote 3600 systems that each required 1000 mile leased lines which
> were only used for 30 minutes (maximum) a day. After investigation, it
> was determined that the customer would have to change the level of
> microcode in the 3600 controller to obtain the new function.
>
> This required the customer to
>
> reassemble his 3600 application programs (APBs)
>
> reassemble his 3600 SYSGENS (CPGENs)
>
> install and use the new microcode
>
> use a new level of 3600 starter diskette.
>
> However, the new level of microcode required a new level of Subsystem
> Support Services (SSS) and Program Validation Services (PVS).
>
> The new level of SSS required a new level of VTAM.
>
> The new level of VTAM required
>
> a new level of NCP
>
> reassembly of the customer written VTAM programs.
>
> ... and on it went ...
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Despite assertions of SNA layering and flexibility, IBM communication
> products lack any semblance of autonomy. Experience has shown that such
> software must exhibit autonomy/isolation characteristics for usability.
> This autonomy is not provided by the SCD product line. IBM is
> revisiting this fact as the IBM U.K. RESPOND network migrates from its
> highly autonomous CON/370 network interface to a VTAM based network.
>
> ... snip ...
>
> past posts mentioning dumb terminal paradigm and/or the presentation
> about communication group being responsible for the demise of disk
> division (and customers fleeing IBM datacenter)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#terminal
> past posts getting to play disk engineer in bldgs 14&15
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#disk
>
JES2 networking is an even worse example of such a fiasco.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332304 is a reply to message #332302] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 14:17 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> JES2 networking is an even worse example of such a fiasco.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#71 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
co-worker at the science center
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech was responsible for
the implementation used primarily for the IBM internal network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
and later bitnet
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#bitnet
I've periodically commented about litney of serious JES2 networking
issues .... including requiring consistent versions across all JES2
systems in an network (incompatible versions including crashing JES2 and
taking down the MVS systems). The multitude of problems restricted JES2
to edge nodes fronted by RSCS/VNET configured to try and keep JES2 from
crashing and taking down MVS.
RSCS/VNET had carefully architectured and implemented layers ... so
RSCS/VNET was able to have special JES2 drivers that would talk JES2
protocol. Over a period of time a library of RSCS/VNET JES2 drivers
grew up that would carefully reformat JES2 header information to
correspond to the specific JES2 on the other end of link (so
transmissions from incompatible JES2 systems wouldn't crash other JES2
systems).
There is famous case of JES2 system in San Jose crashing MVS systems in
Hursely. It was eventually blamed on the RSCS/VNET group because they
hadn't loaded the (been notified to load the latest) corresponding JES2
reformater on the Hursely RSCS/VNET.
Part of the shortcomings in the JES2 implementation was that it
intermixed JES2 networking fields with the JES2 job control fields
.... simple incompatible release-to-release changes, would cause system
crashes from network transmissions.
some past HASP, JES, JES networking, etc posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#hasp
the HASP/JES2 networking support, originally carried "TUCC" in cols.
68-71 of the source (from the customer that had done the original
implementation). One of the shortcomings was that for defining nodes, it
used unused entries in the 255 entry psuedo device table (which usually
met limiting to around 160 defined nodes). The internal network quickly
passed 255 nodes and HASP/JES2 would trash traffic where it didn't have
the originating node and/or the destination node its defined table
(another reason why JES2/MVS was restricted to edge nodes). The internal
network had exceeded 1000 nodes well before JES2 got around to extending
support to limit of 999 nodes.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332305 is a reply to message #332301] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 14:02 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 16 Nov 2016 18:07:41 GMT
Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:04:00 +0000, Huge wrote:
>
>> On 2016-11-16, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 02:24:11 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>
>> [23 lines snipped]
>>
>>>> Ha! Not literally. But modulo this & that, mutatis mutandem etc.
>>>> that's not so very far off. How's this? The set also included a
>>>> sterling tie tack but I haven't worn a tie more than a dozen or so
>>>> times in 50 years.
>>>
>>> I think that a nice pair of nuts and bolts would actually be fun to
>>> wear.
>>> Either a nice black finish, or perhaps stainless steel.
>>
>> http://www.veritasgifts.co.uk/products/nut-and-bolt-cufflink s/
>
> I'm a cheapskate. Local ironmonger (and yes, we have one).
Quite right too! For that price you could buy a box of nuts and
bolts and have them gold plated.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332306 is a reply to message #332296] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 14:34 |
dave[1][2]
Messages: 119
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 16/11/2016 16:37, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 7:36:59 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> For the last decade or so, TV's have connected to the internet via
>>> either wireless or wired ethernet.
>>
>> That doesn't answer the obvious question. A connection to the Internet is
>> something one normally has to pay money to get. If one hasn't connected the TV
>> set to one's home computer network, put a SIM card into it for a cell phone
>> account with a data plan, registered it with the cable company so that the TV
>> set acts as its own set-top box...
>
> The TV, if it has access to the internet, will poll a TV manufacturer
> server periodically to determine if new firmware for the TV is available.
>
In the UK many TV's can receive updates "Over the Air"...
http://dtg.org.uk/dtg/download_schedule.html
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332309 is a reply to message #332303] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 14:55 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-11-16, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 16/11/2016 14:21, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
> {snip}
>
>>> ??? What kind of games need a CD? Google
>>> "Steam".
>>
>> I need a CD device to install the games I buy at the store.
>>
>> /BAH
>>
>
> If the CD/DVD/Blu ray player will exceed the useful life of your
> computer it may be worthwhile buying it as a separate box. Particularly
> if your computer is only used at home.
I have a dvd player that plugs into usb. I would think we all have
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332310 is a reply to message #331293] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 14:57 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> On 2016-11-16, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 02:24:11 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
> [23 lines snipped]
>
>>> Ha! Not literally. But modulo this & that, mutatis mutandem etc.
>>> that's not so very far off. How's this? The set also included a
>>> sterling tie tack but I haven't worn a tie more than a dozen or so times
>>> in 50 years.
>>
>> I think that a nice pair of nuts and bolts would actually be fun to wear.
>> Either a nice black finish, or perhaps stainless steel.
Phosphate black or gun-blued. Or maybe that peacock blue achieved on
steel with molten nitrates. Stainless would be too, yew know, posh
for me. :-)
> http://www.veritasgifts.co.uk/products/nut-and-bolt-cufflink s/
Ooh, nice. But too posh.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332311 is a reply to message #332225] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 15:16 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 12:11:38 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> recent post in FACEBOOK IBM group ... started with salesman commented
> that he was told to tell customers that "color" was distracting (when he
> was selling IBM non-color displays against competition color displays)
Actually, in the early days of color, both in computer screens and
in the movies, it _was_ distracting. Early developers in both modes
_over-_used it because it was there. Movies and computers had bright
garish colors in every scene. (TV wasn't as bad as programs had to
be viewable in b&w too).
In early PC days, I found CGA hard to see as compared to traditional
monochrome screens.
To this day, some 3270 applications use a dark blue which is barely
visible.
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#53 IBM Sales & Marketing
>
> IBM sales/marketing became notorious for FUD ... especially refined
> during the FS period in the 70s .... Future System was going to
> completely replace 360/370 and was totally different ... and internal
> politics in the period was shutting down 370 efforts (the lack of IBM
> offerings during and after FS is credited with giving clone makers
> market foothold).
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys
>
> The other joke, you could tell when something wasn't selling when
> corporate declared it "strategic" and offered big sales incentives.
>
> Internally inside IBM there was some number of CALMA terminals
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calma
>
> which were later augmented by rebranded tektronic display ... that was
> configured to hook into the side of 3277 temrinal.
>
> In the 80s, a former co-worker at IBM had left and was doing lots of
> consulting business around silicon valley. One of his customers as large
> chip shop that had large IBM mainframe datacenter that was looking at
> hooking up a large number of SGI workstations. The former IBMer had done
> a lot of work on porting (C-based) workstation chip design application
> to IBM mainframe along with porting/optimizing C-compiler for IBM
> mainframe. One day the IBM salesman stopped by and asked what he was
> doing, he replied was getting IBM mainframe ethernet support working
> (for the SGI workstations). The salesman said that he should be doing
> Token-Ring instead ... and if he didn't, the customer might find their
> service calls not answered in timely manner. Almost immediately I got a
> hour phone call that included lots of four letter words. Next morning
> the senior VP of engineering (had used CP67 back when he was young
> engineer) had large press conference to announce it was replacing all
> its IBM mainframes with SUN servers.
>
> Afterwards corporate sponsored a bunch of taskforce investigations into
> the technical reason why the customer was moving off IBM mainframes (all
> the investigations carefully avoided any mention of the real reason).
>
> ...
>
> note the other part was gov. & litigation pressure forced 23jun1969
> unbundling announcement, which including starting to charge for software
> ... although IBM did manage to make the case that kernel software should
> still be "free".
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#unbundle
>
> Part of the rise of clone processor makers was (also) decision to
> transition to charging for kernel software. This led to decision to
> release some of my stuff (I continued to work on 360/370 stuff all
> during the FS period, even ridiculing FS which wasn't exactly career
> enhancing activity ... one of my hobbies was producing enhanced systems
> for production use at internal datacenters so a lot was already in us
> around the company). It was decided that the "resource manager" stuff
> ... some past posts
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare
>
> would be guinea pig for charging for kernel software. After the switch
> to charging for kernel software ... then came the OCO (object code only)
> "WARS" ... no longer making source available.
>
> some past posts with OCO-WARs references
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#15 Data Areas Manuals to be dropped
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#31 How smart do you need to be to be really good with Assembler?
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#35 BBC News - Microsoft fixes '19-year-old' bug with emergency patch
> in VMSHARE archives
> http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/
>
> trivia ... shortly after porting from CP67 to VM370 at the science
> center
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
> some old email
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#email731212
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750102
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750430
>
> and making "CSC/VM" available for internal datacenters ... somebody cut
> deal to make a copy of CSC/VM (with all source) available to AT&T
> Longlines. The original morph from CP67 to VM370 simplified and dropped
> a bunch of stuff from CP67 ... including a lot of my stuff that was
> already shipping to customers ... and before VM370 multiprocessor
> support. Nearly a decade later, the AT&T national marketing rep tracked
> me down to ask about helping AT&T longlines. They were still running
> copy of CSC/VM (having migrated to each new generation of hardware). The
> problem was that IBM was no longer selling single processor machines
> ... and AT&T was looking at replacing all their machines running CSC/VM
> with latest clone machines (which were still offering single processor
> products). past posts mentioning SMP (and/or compare&swap instruction)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp
>
> as an aside, the (charged-for) "resource manager" that shipped for VM370
> release 3 ... included bunch of other stuff ... including restructuring
> of lots of VM370 kernel for multiprocessor support ... but not the
> actual SMP support. During transition phase required hardware support
> would still be free. IBM then decided to ship SMP support in VM370
> release 4 ("free" hardware support) ... however it was dependent on the
> VM370 restructuring that was already in the charged-for "resource
> manager". Eventual resolution was to move nearly 90% of the code in the
> (release 3) "resource manager" into the "free" release 4 base, while not
> changing the price of the "resource manager" (release 4 resource manager
> price same as release 3 resource manager).
>
> other posts in this thread:
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#43 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#44 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#45 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#46 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#47 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#48 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#49 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#50 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#51 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#52 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#54 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#61 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#62 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016g.html#67 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
>
>
> --
> virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332312 is a reply to message #332227] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 15:19 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 1:33:50 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
> But computers are scarce in the garbage, so they are either sitting around
> more, or going to ewaste recycling. Even garage sales, I'm not seeing
> much in the way of computers.
In our region, it is illegal to dispose of various electronic devices
in the trash. (Unfortunately, the proper method of disposal is a real
pain and expensive.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332313 is a reply to message #332281] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 15:24 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 7:39:38 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
> Yes it is. At PPOE we got ourselves into a knot by not being up to date. We
> bought a new mainframe and needed to jump forward a couple of OS versions -
> we discovered there was no direct upgrade so we had to install an
> intermediate release on a temporary system so we could upgrade. Then
> there's the issue of other software: this release of DB2 requires _that_
> release of the OS that requires _this_ release of VTAM, etc.
+1
frustrating.
Y2k forced us to update a lot of stuff that was working just fine
for the above reasons. But we are always making various OS upgrades.
(I don't like them because I have to come in Sunday mornings to test
the applications. Of course, the sysprogs have to work all night.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332314 is a reply to message #332309] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 15:21 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 16 Nov 2016 19:55:50 GMT
maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2016-11-16, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 16/11/2016 14:21, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>>> ??? What kind of games need a CD? Google
>>>> "Steam".
>>>
>>> I need a CD device to install the games I buy at the store.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>>
>>
>> If the CD/DVD/Blu ray player will exceed the useful life of your
>> computer it may be worthwhile buying it as a separate box. Particularly
>> if your computer is only used at home.
>
>
> I have a dvd player that plugs into usb. I would think we all have
Nah my boxes are old enough that they have DVD burners in them -
not been used for a long time though so they may not work.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332316 is a reply to message #332305] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 15:45 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <20161116190225.80da323aaeeb63a00ac4716b@eircom.net>,
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2016 18:07:41 GMT
> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:04:00 +0000, Huge wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-11-16, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 02:24:11 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>> [23 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>> > Ha! Not literally. But modulo this & that, mutatis mutandem etc.
>>>> > that's not so very far off. How's this? The set also included a
>>>> > sterling tie tack but I haven't worn a tie more than a dozen or so
>>>> > times in 50 years.
>>>>
>>>> I think that a nice pair of nuts and bolts would actually be fun to
>>>> wear.
>>>> Either a nice black finish, or perhaps stainless steel.
>>>
>>> http://www.veritasgifts.co.uk/products/nut-and-bolt-cufflink s/
>>
>> I'm a cheapskate. Local ironmonger (and yes, we have one).
>
> Quite right too! For that price you could buy a box of nuts and
> bolts and have them gold plated.
I have found a jeweler artist that works in steel, aluminium and
some copper and use stones of granite or similarly priced materials.
I have bought a set of necklace and earrings for my wife on two
occasions; total price was below $100 for some quite cool jewelry.
It does not have to be gold/silver/gemstones.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332317 is a reply to message #332313] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 15:50 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 7:39:38 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Yes it is. At PPOE we got ourselves into a knot by not being up to date. We
>> bought a new mainframe and needed to jump forward a couple of OS versions -
>> we discovered there was no direct upgrade so we had to install an
>> intermediate release on a temporary system so we could upgrade. Then
>> there's the issue of other software: this release of DB2 requires _that_
>> release of the OS that requires _this_ release of VTAM, etc.
>
> +1
>
> frustrating.
>
> Y2k forced us to update a lot of stuff that was working just fine
> for the above reasons. But we are always making various OS upgrades.
> (I don't like them because I have to come in Sunday mornings to test
> the applications. Of course, the sysprogs have to work all night.)
>
>
Now with cheap disks and LPARs/virtual machines we were able to test fairly
thoroughly during prime shift and just re-IPL with the new system on our
regular schedule.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332318 is a reply to message #332309] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 15:50 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2016-11-16, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 16/11/2016 14:21, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>>> ??? What kind of games need a CD? Google
>>>> "Steam".
>>>
>>> I need a CD device to install the games I buy at the store.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>>
>>
>> If the CD/DVD/Blu ray player will exceed the useful life of your
>> computer it may be worthwhile buying it as a separate box. Particularly
>> if your computer is only used at home.
>
>
> I have a dvd player that plugs into usb. I would think we all have
>
>
Fairly cheap, too.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332319 is a reply to message #332312] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 15:41 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:19:41 -0800 (PST)
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 1:33:50 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
>
>> But computers are scarce in the garbage, so they are either sitting
>> around more, or going to ewaste recycling. Even garage sales, I'm not
>> seeing much in the way of computers.
>
> In our region, it is illegal to dispose of various electronic devices
> in the trash. (Unfortunately, the proper method of disposal is a real
> pain and expensive.)
Same here, but the proper method is free provided you take the
stuff to the recycling centre yourself or if you're buying something
electronic then the shop will take an old one for free.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332321 is a reply to message #332311] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 16:39 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-11-16, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 12:11:38 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
>> recent post in FACEBOOK IBM group ... started with salesman commented
>> that he was told to tell customers that "color" was distracting (when he
>> was selling IBM non-color displays against competition color displays)
>
> Actually, in the early days of color, both in computer screens and
> in the movies, it _was_ distracting. Early developers in both modes
> _over-_used it because it was there. Movies and computers had bright
> garish colors in every scene.
This seems to be an aspect of human nature. Anything new has to be
overused until people get tired of it. Remember quadraphonic sound?
Existing stereo albums were remixed so the sound was ping-ponging from
speaker to speaker - totally obnoxious. I stuck with my 2-channel
equipment and chanted, "This too shall pass." And eventually it did.
Today the fad is flashing blue LEDs everywhere. This too shall pass...
> (TV wasn't as bad as programs had to be viewable in b&w too).
True, but advertisers did a wonderful job of making colours pop
while still being viewable in B&W.
> In early PC days, I found CGA hard to see as compared to traditional
> monochrome screens.
That was due to its lousy resolution - and fuzzy characters - compared
to the razor-sharp display you'd get from a Hercules card and monochrome
monitor. CGA was also painfully slow - a good secretary could type a
full word ahead of a CGA screen.
When a PPOE got its first XT clones, they all had CGA. Several months
later, all but one were changed to monochrome. (The one exception was
a machine used by engineering that actually needed colour graphics.)
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332322 is a reply to message #331293] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 16:39 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-11-16, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 11/16/2016 10:37 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 7:36:59 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>>> For the last decade or so, TV's have connected to the internet via
>>>> either wireless or wired ethernet.
>>>
>>> That doesn't answer the obvious question. A connection to the Internet is
>>> something one normally has to pay money to get. If one hasn't connected the
>>> TV set to one's home computer network, put a SIM card into it for a cell
>>> phone account with a data plan, registered it with the cable company so
>>> that the TV set acts as its own set-top box...
>>
>> The TV, if it has access to the internet, will poll a TV manufacturer
>> server periodically to determine if new firmware for the TV is available.
>>
> And also, in some cases, to report details about what shows you've
> watched and what it's been used for.
"When you watch your TV, your TV watches you."
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332330 is a reply to message #332311] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 17:11 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 12:11:38 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
>> recent post in FACEBOOK IBM group ... started with salesman commented
>> that he was told to tell customers that "color" was distracting (when he
>> was selling IBM non-color displays against competition color displays)
>
> Actually, in the early days of color, both in computer screens and
> in the movies, it _was_ distracting. Early developers in both modes
> _over-_used it because it was there. Movies and computers had bright
> garish colors in every scene. (TV wasn't as bad as programs had to
> be viewable in b&w too).
>
> In early PC days, I found CGA hard to see as compared to traditional
> monochrome screens.
>
> To this day, some 3270 applications use a dark blue which is barely
> visible.
Shame on them.
The original IBM color terminal (IBM 3279) used a blue that was
quite visible.
Any 3270 emulator writer worth their salt provides a way of tuning
the way all the colors appear. 00:00:FF (blue) has never been
acceptable for 3270 blue.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332333 is a reply to message #332286] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 19:47 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <PM0005416BD60C7518
@aca480f0.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
says...
>
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> powered on tv this morning ... and it had little box on the side saying
>> new system had been automatically loaded. got it before on cellphones
>> and tablets, but this is first time got it for TV.
>>
> Where did it get the new code to load? If the answer is cable, how
> did the cable company know your TV needed new code? Or was the
> "new system" a download of station channel info?
Modern TV sets have wireless internet built in,
some have wired as well.
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332334 is a reply to message #332289] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 19:52 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <20457705-d849-4ad1-814d-249fe3366693
@googlegroups.com>, jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says...
>
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 7:36:59 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> For the last decade or so, TV's have connected to the internet via
>> either wireless or wired ethernet.
>
> That doesn't answer the obvious question. A connection to the Internet is
> something one normally has to pay money to get. If one hasn't connected the TV
> set to one's home computer network, put a SIM card into it for a cell phone
> account with a data plan, registered it with the cable company so that the TV
> set acts as its own set-top box...
>
> did the manufacturer build an Iridium gizmo into it, or is it using one's
> Internet connection in a surreptitious manner, or are TV stations including
> firmware updates in their vertical blanking interval... except, of course, with
> digital TV, they don't have those any more.
If someone is posting here it is reasonable to
believe that they have Internet access.
Usually when you turn it on for the first time
it identifies wireless access points in the area
and asks which it is to use.
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332335 is a reply to message #332278] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 19:58 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:31:10 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <2r9o2cd3eptq55dq4t6pe3gtmdaqdcil5c@
> 4ax.com>, genew@telus.net says...
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:50:15 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why? Because I get annoyed when someone asks a
>>> question that has no relevance to anything that
>>> has gone before in the thread?
>>
>> No, because you are very often very deliberately contrarian.
>
> I'm sorry but the argument that in 2016 one
> should use a dumb terminal to access a computer
> somewhere on the far side of the Internet to
> save money or eliminate "sysadmin tasks" just
> seems surreal. I get the feeling that I am
> having a discussion with people who retired in
> the '90s and haven't set foot outside their
> house since. So does the argument that
> "computers are expensive", like one can go
> somewhere and pick up a working, supported dumb
> terminal for less than the cost of an entry-
> level laptop.
>
> And then it goes on to the notion that one
> should build a terminal from scratch using plans
> downloaded from Sourceforge and then connect
> that dumb terminal to a serial port on a
> computer that one already owns in order to avoid
> those sysadmin tasks and unnecessary expense.
>
> This whole TV business came about because people
> seem to be in denial about the capabilities of
> what passes for an entry-level TV set today.
> For God's sake it's 2016. A 40" 4K set with
> lots of built-in intelligence including a Web
> browser goes for 300 bucks retail at a big box
> store. This isn't high end or exotic, people.
>
> Then there was Barb's game comment. Anybody in
> touch with the computer gaming community knows
> that if you're not using a console, you get your
> games off of Steam or if you're looking for
> something antique there are some other sites
> that have managed to obtain the rights to a
> variety of titles from dead companies. You
> don't go to the computer store and buy a game in
> a box unless you want to give it to somebody as
> a packaged gift and when you do all you're
> really giving them is the code to plug into
> Steam.
>
> It is not the 90s anymore. For that matter is
> not with oughts anymore. You can buy a computer
> that kicks any 390's butt for 50 bucks, new,
> slight assembly required. You can buy machines
> that kick an X/MP's butt used on ebay for a
> hundred. If you want to spend a thousand you're
> into a machine with peak performance in the
> effing TERAFLOPS, which is gross overkill for
> most individuals who don't play games.
>
> So this whole discussion makes no sense to me.
> There is nothing "contrarian" about the view
> that anything you buy today that can be used as
> a "dumb terminal" is a computer than can do
> anything that most people need a computer to do.
I don't get the desire for a dumb terminal either. I never liked the
Dec VT102s I had to use at university. But it was fun watching the
Apple ][+ users from the community college stick their 5.25 inch
floppies into the cooling vents on the terminals. Some told me there
had to be a floppy drive in there somewhere.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332339 is a reply to message #332322] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 22:11 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2016-11-16, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/2016 10:37 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 7:36:59 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > For the last decade or so, TV's have connected to the internet via
>>>> > either wireless or wired ethernet.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't answer the obvious question. A connection to the Internet is
>>>> something one normally has to pay money to get. If one hasn't connected the
>>>> TV set to one's home computer network, put a SIM card into it for a cell
>>>> phone account with a data plan, registered it with the cable company so
>>>> that the TV set acts as its own set-top box...
>>>
>>> The TV, if it has access to the internet, will poll a TV manufacturer
>>> server periodically to determine if new firmware for the TV is available.
>>>
>> And also, in some cases, to report details about what shows you've
>> watched and what it's been used for.
>
> "When you watch your TV, your TV watches you."
>
Of course, some of those "smart" TVs now include a webcam so it can look
back at the viewers, and that has been used to snoop on the viewers.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #332340 is a reply to message #332319] |
Wed, 16 November 2016 22:14 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:19:41 -0800 (PST)
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 1:33:50 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
>>
>>> But computers are scarce in the garbage, so they are either sitting
>>> around more, or going to ewaste recycling. Even garage sales, I'm not
>>> seeing much in the way of computers.
>>
>> In our region, it is illegal to dispose of various electronic devices
>> in the trash. (Unfortunately, the proper method of disposal is a real
>> pain and expensive.)
>
> Same here, but the proper method is free provided you take the
> stuff to the recycling centre yourself or if you're buying something
> electronic then the shop will take an old one for free.
>
Here in Quebec (and I gather at least some of the other provinces too)
there's now a surcharge when buying electronics. I can't quite figure it,
because it varies with the item, and something like a tv set has a larger
surcharge than a computer (which makes me think the structure was designed
back when most tv sets were crt). Wven batteries get a small surcharge.
Oddly enough, this isn't a deposit that you can get back when you dispose
of the item properly. It's just a charge to help pay for dealing with the
electronics later.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
