| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348242 is a reply to message #348211] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 14:56   |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 5:22:54 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> Reading some Sherlock Holmes, it amazed me that people got mail twice a day
>>> back then. Every year things seem to go a little further downhill.
>>
>> My parents had twice a day mail on weekdays, first delivery early
>> in the morning, second delivery in the afternoon. However, this was
>> within a large city, I'm not sure if that was provided to small towns.
>> I don't know when it was discontinued.
>>
> Of course, mail was much more important back then.
They're certainly doing all they can to make it unimportant!
>
>> Today, mail arrives at my house about 6 p.m.
>>
> Canada Post was experimenting, and I'm not sure how far it went, with
> later delivery. Their take was that an increasing percentage of the mail
> to deliver is packages, and there's little sense in trying to deliver
> those during the day if nobody is home. So they were doing some pilot
> projects for late deliveries, I'm not sure where that went.
>
> And they've moved away from boxes on the corner where the mailmen get
> their mail to deliver, and instead they have small trucks, which also
> means they don't have to carry packages the full route. The mailman has
> rung the bell a few times recently, to see if anyone is home, then gone to
> the corner to get the package and drop it off.
>
>> Today, a lot of people no longer have a personal mailbox in front of
>> their house or driveway. They must go to a corner and use something
>> called a "clusterbox".
>>
> Here it's by decree of the post office. Those boxes were coming for a long
> time in new areas and more suburban areas, but a few years ago they
> decided everyone would get the boxes. And there was a fuss, and an
> election and then that went away. I'm torn, because depending on where the
> joint boxes are, it could be extra work, but at the same time, the multi
> boxes have places for packages, so they can be left without anyone being
> home.
>
> Michael
>
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348248 is a reply to message #348155] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 15:26 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 2:07:01 AM UTC-4, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> That was in Operation (scanning letters and sending them electronically) was
>> in some way in operation back in the 60's.. Can't remember much more
>> about it. I think it was a military thing.
>>
>>
> fax machines for sending photographs have been around for a long time.
> Telegrams used to be delivered.
For many decades Western Union used boys, some as young as 10 y/o,
to deliver telegrams. They worked cheap. W/U promoted it as a
stepping stone to a better job industry, but in reality it wasn't
great work and had little opportunity. After WW II this was no
longer viable and the cost of using adult drivers was high.
Ref: Telegraph Messenger Boys: Labor, Technology, and Geography,
1850-1950 By Gregory John Downey.
In the 1950s W/U developed a DeskFax device and installed thouands
of them on businessmen's desk to replace messengers.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348249 is a reply to message #348176] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 15:28 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:41:58 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
> That is common. What really annoys me is that our condo doesn't have boxes
> for *outgoing* mail. Apparently they used to have them, but removed them
> due to problems with people stealing mail. I have to drive up to the corner
> to mail a letter.
Yes, many outgoing mailboxes have been removed. I have to drive to
the post office to mail stuff.
One also must check the pickup time on the box. Certain boxes used
to have a late afternoon pickup and that has been moved back to the
morning.
Thanks to these post office policies, they lost my business. I
pay bills electronically now (although Verizon has been a big pain,
probably 'cause they got hacked.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348251 is a reply to message #348208] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 15:32 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 12:37:51 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
> Facsimile dates back to the thirties, and often used for sending news
> photos and weather details. That's forgotten because that big wave of
> cheap fax machines in the eighties made them so much more common.
Previously posted here was a link to articles to describing how
internal fax was used by the Pennsylvania Railroad to print tickets.
I can repost it if desired.
Around 1960 Western Union offered public fax services. One could
take (or have sent) a document to the Western Union office and have
it faxed to a distant city. It was about $5, in 1960 dollars. I
don't think it was too successful. W/U concentrated on private
corporate fax networks, such as for weather and banking information.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348270 is a reply to message #348249] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 19:40 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:41:58 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> That is common. What really annoys me is that our condo doesn't have boxes
>> for *outgoing* mail. Apparently they used to have them, but removed them
>> due to problems with people stealing mail. I have to drive up to the corner
>> to mail a letter.
>
> Yes, many outgoing mailboxes have been removed. I have to drive to
> the post office to mail stuff.
>
Though, here in Quebec we had a wave of mailbox bombings in the sixties,
the local FLQ. There's an episode of "Ironside" that sort of deals with
it, apparently it wasn't shown here at the time because it was too real
when it aired in the US.
But that didn't close up the mailboxes. Probably some have been removed
in recent years, but that's because mail use is down I assume.
> One also must check the pickup time on the box. Certain boxes used
> to have a late afternoon pickup and that has been moved back to the
> morning.
>
That happened here. A few mailboxes within a few blocks, but the pkckup
times weren't the same for each. So that box was good if it was late
night and I wanted something picked up early in the morning, while that
mailbox over there was good if it was afternoon and I wanted it to get
picked up about 5pm.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348277 is a reply to message #348039] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 20:20 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/11/2017 9:28 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> Ironically, much of the writings before the PC predicted timesharing
> for the home and small office as the wave of the future. The usage
> would be as we use the Internet today--to engage in commerce and
> obtain information. They envisioned giant "library computers" to
> provide information. I don't know who first thought of true email,
> but early on Western Union accepted telegrams from an online source
> and at a discount, and saw themselves being--in effect--an email
> server. I think Western Union would've loved to have cheap terminals
> to connect to its existing Telex Teletype network to broaden its
> customer base.
>
> Let's remember at least two companies aspired to be content
> providers--Compuserve and Prodigy.
>
Yes, Compuserve was an information service and a content provider
headquartered in Columbus, Ohio:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompuServe
But don't forget the other large information service and content
provider The Source located in McLean, Virginia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Source_(online_service)
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348278 is a reply to message #348042] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 20:25 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/11/2017 11:34 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> There were, therefore, two major battles in the road the Wintel platform took to
> dominance: the initial victory of PC-DOS/MS-DOS over CP/M, and the subsequent
> victory of Windows 3.1 over the Macintosh, AmigaDOS and the GEM Desktop.
>
DO *not* forget that Microsoft was contracted by Apple to develop
software for the not-yet-existing Macintosh in the early 80's. Word and
Excel started out on the Mac. So Bill Gates had the insider information
about how the Apple GUI was to be programmed. It still took Bill until
Windows 95 to come up with a half-decent windowing system.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348280 is a reply to message #348195] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 20:38 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/13/2017 8:43 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> William Pechter wrote:
>> In article <PM0005541E970E07D8@aca40b6f.ipt.aol.com>,
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>>> On 7/11/2017 7:51 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> > Alan Bowler wrote:
>>>> >> On 2017-06-26 12:25 PM, Michael Black wrote:
>>>> >>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> (I wasn't gonna post any more about Mannix, but this 1972 episode was
>>>> >>>> computer related).
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> A highly skilled computer designer was killed while playing golf.
>>>> >>>> Mannix is hired to find critical plans he was working on, for using
>>>> >>>> "microcircuits" to create "a phenomenal computer that would fit in a
>>>> >>>> briefcase." (The Intel 4004 was just invented in 1971 and 8008 in
>>>> >>>> 1972, but I doubt the show's writers knew about it.)*
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>> But surely by then it wasn't really far out. Smaller was already the
>>>> > trend. David Ahl was at DEC
>>>> >>> at the time, and at some point he had a portable PDP-8, I forget the
>>>> > details but it would fit in
>>>> >>> the trunk, and he wanted DEC to market it as an educational product. I
>>>> > don't know about fitting
>>>> >>> into a briefcase, but the 7400 family of TTL logic ICs had much of what
>>> was
>>>> > needed to make a
>>>> >>> computer, if not everything other than memory. Those are
> "microcircuits"
>>>> > too.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I've said it before, but in the November 1972 issue of "73" magazine,
> for
>>>> > amateur radio, there was
>>>> >>> an idea article about making your own computer, and it didn't include a
>>>> > microprocessor.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So if a briefcase was an exageration at the time of the show, it wasn't
>>> too
>>>> > far off. Maybe a big
>>>> >>> suitcase would be needed at that point.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The PDP-8/S was introduced in 1966, ant it along with a ASR-33 Teletype
>>>> >> could certain be fit in the truck of some cars at the time. Power and
>>>> > storage
>>>> >> would be a problem. In '73 I sometimes lugger home a portable terminal,
>>>> >> (Execuport) so it would not have been impossible to imagine a briefcase
>>>> >> computer in 1972.
>>>> >
>>>> > Why would power be a problem?
>>>>
>>>> Mobile use would require a very very long extension cord. (I'm
>>>> guessing that the power requirements of a PDP-8/S and a teletype were
>>>> not something the average automobile electrical system could handle.)
>>>
>>> Ah, now I understand. One could set up an -8 in a house trailer and
>>> use the power recepticle found in camps.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Though I don't think the original "briefcase size computer" spec
>>>> necessarily specified that the computer had to work on battery power.
>>>
>>> not in the 60s and early 70s.
>>>
>>>> Certainly most of those that were designated "portable" (Osborne,
>>>> Kaypro, PC Portable, Compaq, Corona, etc.) as opposed to "laptop"
>>>> required mains power.
>>>
>>> an -8 could be plugged in any where a TV could.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>
>> Actually, they couldn't if they had a pair of RK05/RL01 drives on them.
>>
>> Blew the circuit breakers in my condo with an 11/23, RK05F and RK05J
>> since the current on the line at drive spin up ran higher than the
>> 15 amp line. The 8 was probably similar if not higher than the
>> converted 11/03.
>>
>> Had to run extension cords for the drives to different circuits if I
>> needed to spin up both drives at once reliably.
>>
>> I could spin one up at a time but the walls got hot 8-).
>
> <GRIN> nobody mentioned a disk requirement ;-)
>
Just have your computer room re-wired for a 50 amp circuit and put a
bigger breaker in the breaker box for it.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348281 is a reply to message #348063] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 20:39 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/12/2017 7:26 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 12:46:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
>>
>>> You aren't likely to find a power outlet on the sidewalk or in the park.
>>>
>>> Though now we have some buses here with USB charging ports. I was on one
>>> last week.
>>
>> Many passenger trains now have charging outlets for passengers.
>
> Now? Acela had them in 2005 when I last rode.
>
Those public charging stations can be modified by crackers to plant
malware on you phone *and* steal all your private info while the phone
is being charged.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348282 is a reply to message #348004] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 20:49 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/11/2017 1:47 PM, William Pechter wrote:
> In article <PM0005540A125AD876@aca40c10.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> Alan Bowler wrote:
>>> On 2017-06-26 12:25 PM, Michael Black wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > (I wasn't gonna post any more about Mannix, but this 1972 episode was
>>>> > computer related).
>>>> >
>>>> > A highly skilled computer designer was killed while playing golf.
>>>> > Mannix is hired to find critical plans he was working on, for using
>>>> > "microcircuits" to create "a phenomenal computer that would fit in a
>>>> > briefcase." (The Intel 4004 was just invented in 1971 and 8008 in
>>>> > 1972, but I doubt the show's writers knew about it.)*
>>>> >
>>>> But surely by then it wasn't really far out. Smaller was already the
>> trend. David Ahl was at DEC
>>>> at the time, and at some point he had a portable PDP-8, I forget the
>> details but it would fit in
>>>> the trunk, and he wanted DEC to market it as an educational product. I
>> don't know about fitting
>>>> into a briefcase, but the 7400 family of TTL logic ICs had much of what was
>> needed to make a
>>>> computer, if not everything other than memory. Those are "microcircuits"
>> too.
>>>>
>>>> I've said it before, but in the November 1972 issue of "73" magazine, for
>> amateur radio, there was
>>>> an idea article about making your own computer, and it didn't include a
>> microprocessor.
>>>>
>>>> So if a briefcase was an exageration at the time of the show, it wasn't too
>> far off. Maybe a big
>>>> suitcase would be needed at that point.
>>>
>>> The PDP-8/S was introduced in 1966, ant it along with a ASR-33 Teletype
>>> could certain be fit in the truck of some cars at the time. Power and
>> storage
>>> would be a problem. In '73 I sometimes lugger home a portable terminal,
>>> (Execuport) so it would not have been impossible to imagine a briefcase
>>> computer in 1972.
>>
>> Why would power be a problem?
>>
>> /BAH
>
> My opinion isn't the best since I'm late to the industry (1981).
> Power supplies at the time were big heavy annoying things.
> The faster smaller switching supplies were late for many of the
> PDP's... having shown up on the different H7xx regulators on the 11's.
>
> Most of the PDP8 vintage machines used big linear power supplies.
> Heavy transformers... big heat to dispell.
>
s/dispell/dispel/
s/dispel/dissipate/
Yeah, I know... personal opinion. But remember that "misspelled" has
*two* s's. And millennia has *two* n's. And "dalmatian" is *not*
spelled with an "o".
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348283 is a reply to message #347922] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 20:50 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/10/2017 8:35 AM, Richard Thiebaud wrote:
> On 07/10/2017 05:15 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 12:32:33 AM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>>> Of course, the only place
>>> I encounter them is as part of crappy laptop keyboards (that last bit
>>> may contain an oxymoron).
>>
>> Surely a tautology. Unless they're so crappy that they're not really
>> keyboards at
>> all.
>>
>> John Savard
>>
> You could always carry a full-size keyboard and plug it into a USB port.
I wish I could carry an IBM Selectric terminal and plug *it* in the USB
port. Those Selectrics have very good keyboards for touch typists.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348284 is a reply to message #347133] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 20:56 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/9/2017 11:44 PM, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 7/9/2017 5:09 PM, Mike Spencer wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>
>>> But I also ran across a radio using subminiature tubes - not as small as
>>> the later NuVistor - that fit in a shirt pocket, from 1946. The Belmont
>>> Boulevard!
>>>
>>> I suppose it was too expensive for teenagers to buy it...
>>
>> My dad sold hearing aids in that era which, IIRC, used subminiature
>> tubes to allow the device to be about the size of a (US) cigarette
>> pack. But at ca, $200 in 1950s money, say four times the price of a
>> classy new bicycle, not for the typical teenager.
>>
>
> Proportionality has been retained. They may use ICs now, but they still
> cost 4X the cost of a classy new bicycle.
"I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my
telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how
to use my telephone." -- Bjarne Stroustrup
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348292 is a reply to message #348136] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 22:14 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12 Jul 2017 22:09:26 -0300, Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
[snip]
> I lucked out, passed muster, still have my rural mailbox. I'd really
> hate to part with it as it's a fancy one made by an artist blacksmith
> [1] from 12 ga. steel, a mouse-head handle, hand-forged support and
> vines & leaves concealing welds.
>
> [1] Myself. :-)
Phew! I thought for a moment you were going to state that it was
someone else.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348293 is a reply to message #348270] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 22:17 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:39:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
>> Yes, many outgoing mailboxes have been removed. I have to drive to
>> the post office to mail stuff.
>>
> Though, here in Quebec we had a wave of mailbox bombings in the sixties,
> the local FLQ. There's an episode of "Ironside" that sort of deals with
> it, apparently it wasn't shown here at the time because it was too real
> when it aired in the US.
> But that didn't close up the mailboxes. Probably some have been removed
> in recent years, but that's because mail use is down I assume.
I don't think the US ever had a significant problem with mailbox
bombing (perhaps a few). But it did have a problem with luggage
locker bombing, and all lockers were removed from transport stations
as a result. As a traveler, they were very useful, and it was a PITA
to stowe my luggage while making connections. For a while, the checked
baggage office would allow it, but even they wouldn't. I don't know what
they do today, but they're careful about any containers, even trash cans.
There was a funny Get Smart! which spoofed Mission Impossible. Max got
a message in a luggage locker. When the tape was supposed to self-destruct,
the entire locker room blew up, EXCEPT for the tape recorder, which kept
on playing. It was also a large tape recorder--Max had to open two other
lockers to show the speakers.
>> One also must check the pickup time on the box. Certain boxes used
>> to have a late afternoon pickup and that has been moved back to the
>> morning.
>>
> That happened here. A few mailboxes within a few blocks, but the pkckup
> times weren't the same for each. So that box was good if it was late
> night and I wanted something picked up early in the morning, while that
> mailbox over there was good if it was afternoon and I wanted it to get
> picked up about 5pm.
Unfortunately, in the U.S. just because someone picks up the mail at
a collection box doesn't mean your letter is on its way. It can sit
in the truck or an intermediate point for hours. The sorting centers
have been consolidated. Generally, mail takes an extra day to reach its
destination (IMHO) thanks to the cutbacks, which only encourages more
switching to e-media.
I don't know all the facts, but I can't help but suspect the U.S. was
better served when the post office was a full government department as
opposed to its modern day "Postal Service" independent status.
In any event, they're doing better with e-commerce, delivering lots of
parcel post. Sadly, the original "mail order" companies, like Sears
and Penney's, are dying. Sears shut down a massive warehouse/distribution
facility, in the meantime, Amazon builds new ones.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348325 is a reply to message #348249] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 08:04 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:41:58 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> That is common. What really annoys me is that our condo doesn't have boxes
>> for *outgoing* mail. Apparently they used to have them, but removed them
>> due to problems with people stealing mail. I have to drive up to the corner
>> to mail a letter.
>
> Yes, many outgoing mailboxes have been removed. I have to drive to
> the post office to mail stuff.
>
> One also must check the pickup time on the box. Certain boxes used
> to have a late afternoon pickup and that has been moved back to the
> morning.
>
> Thanks to these post office policies, they lost my business.
As I said, that seems to be the plan.
> I pay bills electronically now (although Verizon has been a big pain,
> probably 'cause they got hacked.)
>
>
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348326 is a reply to message #348270] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 08:04 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:41:58 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> That is common. What really annoys me is that our condo doesn't have boxes
>>> for *outgoing* mail. Apparently they used to have them, but removed them
>>> due to problems with people stealing mail. I have to drive up to the corner
>>> to mail a letter.
>>
>> Yes, many outgoing mailboxes have been removed. I have to drive to
>> the post office to mail stuff.
>>
> Though, here in Quebec we had a wave of mailbox bombings in the sixties,
> the local FLQ. There's an episode of "Ironside" that sort of deals with
> it, apparently it wasn't shown here at the time because it was too real
> when it aired in the US.
>
> But that didn't close up the mailboxes. Probably some have been removed
> in recent years, but that's because mail use is down I assume.
But an outgoing slot in a cluster is basically no work for the "mail
carrier".
>
>
>
>> One also must check the pickup time on the box. Certain boxes used
>> to have a late afternoon pickup and that has been moved back to the
>> morning.
>>
> That happened here. A few mailboxes within a few blocks, but the pkckup
> times weren't the same for each. So that box was good if it was late
> night and I wanted something picked up early in the morning, while that
> mailbox over there was good if it was afternoon and I wanted it to get
> picked up about 5pm.
>
> Michael
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348327 is a reply to message #348283] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 08:04 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/2017 8:35 AM, Richard Thiebaud wrote:
>> On 07/10/2017 05:15 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 12:32:33 AM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>> Of course, the only place
>>>> I encounter them is as part of crappy laptop keyboards (that last bit
>>>> may contain an oxymoron).
>>>
>>> Surely a tautology. Unless they're so crappy that they're not really
>>> keyboards at
>>> all.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>>
>> You could always carry a full-size keyboard and plug it into a USB port.
>
> I wish I could carry an IBM Selectric terminal and plug *it* in the USB
> port. Those Selectrics have very good keyboards for touch typists.
>
There's a project for someone;-)
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348331 is a reply to message #348281] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 08:26 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> On 7/12/2017 7:26 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 12:46:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
>>>
>>>> You aren't likely to find a power outlet on the sidewalk or in the park.
>>>>
>>>> Though now we have some buses here with USB charging ports. I was on one
>>>> last week.
>>>
>>> Many passenger trains now have charging outlets for passengers.
>>
>> Now? Acela had them in 2005 when I last rode.
>>
>
> Those public charging stations can be modified by crackers to plant
> malware on you phone *and* steal all your private info while the phone
> is being charged.
Those "public charging stations" on the Acela, that I referred to,
were 120VAC outlets on the floor. So far as I'm aware, nobody has
come up with hack for switching power supplies.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348341 is a reply to message #348331] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 09:02 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-07-14, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>> On 7/12/2017 7:26 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 12:46:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > You aren't likely to find a power outlet on the sidewalk or in the park.
>>>> >
>>>> > Though now we have some buses here with USB charging ports. I was on one
>>>> > last week.
>>>>
>>>> Many passenger trains now have charging outlets for passengers.
>>>
>>> Now? Acela had them in 2005 when I last rode.
>>>
>>
>> Those public charging stations can be modified by crackers to plant
>> malware on you phone *and* steal all your private info while the phone
>> is being charged.
>
> Those "public charging stations" on the Acela, that I referred to,
> were 120VAC outlets on the floor. So far as I'm aware, nobody has
> come up with hack for switching power supplies.
There are old facilities for power cables to carry data, and, I think,
developments within the last few years. The old ones worked within an
area that did not involve moving through transformers.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348344 is a reply to message #348341] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 09:21 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
mausg@mail.com writes:
> On 2017-07-14, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>>> On 7/12/2017 7:26 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>> > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 12:46:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> You aren't likely to find a power outlet on the sidewalk or in the park.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Though now we have some buses here with USB charging ports. I was on one
>>>> >> last week.
>>>> >
>>>> > Many passenger trains now have charging outlets for passengers.
>>>>
>>>> Now? Acela had them in 2005 when I last rode.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Those public charging stations can be modified by crackers to plant
>>> malware on you phone *and* steal all your private info while the phone
>>> is being charged.
>>
>> Those "public charging stations" on the Acela, that I referred to,
>> were 120VAC outlets on the floor. So far as I'm aware, nobody has
>> come up with hack for switching power supplies.
>
> There are old facilities for power cables to carry data, and, I think,
> developments within the last few years. The old ones worked within an
> area that did not involve moving through transformers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X10_%28industry_standard%29
Not gonna make it through a switching PS, however.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348387 is a reply to message #348278] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 15:37 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:25:09 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
> DO *not* forget that Microsoft was contracted by Apple to develop
> software for the not-yet-existing Macintosh in the early 80's. Word
> and Excel started out on the Mac. So Bill Gates had the insider
> information about how the Apple GUI was to be programmed. It still
> took Bill until Windows 95 to come up with a half-decent windowing
> system.
I'd say Windows 3.x. Not that I liked it but that seems to have been the
break through for Microsoft when it came to windowed systems.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
the antenna on your truck is a danger to low flying airplanes.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348401 is a reply to message #348387] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 17:21 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:25:09 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>> DO *not* forget that Microsoft was contracted by Apple to develop
>> software for the not-yet-existing Macintosh in the early 80's. Word
>> and Excel started out on the Mac. So Bill Gates had the insider
>> information about how the Apple GUI was to be programmed. It still
>> took Bill until Windows 95 to come up with a half-decent windowing
>> system.
>
> I'd say Windows 3.x. Not that I liked it but that seems to have been the
> break through for Microsoft when it came to windowed systems.
I was spoiled by OS/. After using that ALL versions of windows seemed
half-assed.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348402 is a reply to message #348401] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 17:30 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:25:09 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>> DO *not* forget that Microsoft was contracted by Apple to develop
>>> software for the not-yet-existing Macintosh in the early 80's. Word
>>> and Excel started out on the Mac. So Bill Gates had the insider
>>> information about how the Apple GUI was to be programmed. It still
>>> took Bill until Windows 95 to come up with a half-decent windowing
>>> system.
>>
>> I'd say Windows 3.x. Not that I liked it but that seems to have been the
>> break through for Microsoft when it came to windowed systems.
>
> I was spoiled by OS/. After using that ALL versions of windows seemed
^^^^^^^^^^^^ OS/2
> half-assed.
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348410 is a reply to message #348387] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 20:38 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <87a846resj.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, ank@spamfence.net says...
>
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:25:09 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>> DO *not* forget that Microsoft was contracted by Apple to develop
>> software for the not-yet-existing Macintosh in the early 80's. Word
>> and Excel started out on the Mac. So Bill Gates had the insider
>> information about how the Apple GUI was to be programmed. It still
>> took Bill until Windows 95 to come up with a half-decent windowing
>> system.
>
> I'd say Windows 3.x. Not that I liked it but that seems to have been the
> break through for Microsoft when it came to windowed systems.
The marketing breakthrough perhaps but it was never Microsoft's strategic
direction. That was OS/2 until the IBM/Microsoft partnership collapsed,
then NT, which is still going strong.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348472 is a reply to message #347133] |
Sat, 15 July 2017 17:24 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <87h8ydxwav.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, ank@spamfence.net says...
>
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:38:08 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> In article <87a846resj.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, ank@spamfence.net says...
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:25:09 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>>
>>>> DO *not* forget that Microsoft was contracted by Apple to develop
>>>> software for the not-yet-existing Macintosh in the early 80's. Word
>>>> and Excel started out on the Mac. So Bill Gates had the insider
>>>> information about how the Apple GUI was to be programmed. It still
>>>> took Bill until Windows 95 to come up with a half-decent windowing
>>>> system.
>>>
>>> I'd say Windows 3.x. Not that I liked it but that seems to have been the
>>> break through for Microsoft when it came to windowed systems.
>>
>> The marketing breakthrough perhaps but it was never Microsoft's strategic
>> direction. That was OS/2 until the IBM/Microsoft partnership collapsed,
>> then NT, which is still going strong.
>
> Still then (1990)?
>
> I remember the Dad of my girl friend back in 1987 worked at IBM and also
> had no good saying about Microsoft then. There was only MS-DOS around at
> that time. But he praised Microchannel and the upcoming OS (he didn't
> names it, but turned out it was OS/2). Then (early 1987) something must
> have been brewing already between IBM and Microsoft.
OS/2 shipped in December 1987. IBM and Microsoft had their falling-out in
1990, by which time Cutler was already onboard and working on NT, which is
currently in release 10.0 and called "Windows 10".
So, yes, NT was the strategic direction in 1990 when Windows 3 shipped, and
it is still going strong today.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348479 is a reply to message #348278] |
Sat, 15 July 2017 19:50 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:25:09 -0500, Charles Richmond
<numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 7/11/2017 11:34 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> There were, therefore, two major battles in the road the Wintel platform took to
>> dominance: the initial victory of PC-DOS/MS-DOS over CP/M, and the subsequent
>> victory of Windows 3.1 over the Macintosh, AmigaDOS and the GEM Desktop.
>>
>
> DO *not* forget that Microsoft was contracted by Apple to develop
> software for the not-yet-existing Macintosh in the early 80's. Word and
> Excel started out on the Mac. So Bill Gates had the insider information
> about how the Apple GUI was to be programmed. It still took Bill until
> Windows 95 to come up with a half-decent windowing system.
Gates even said in the 1980s that his computer users had no need for
all the graphics, mouse, stereo sound, etc. that the Macintosh and the
Amiga had. Then when he added it to his OS, he tried to act like he
invented it.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348531 is a reply to message #348479] |
Sun, 16 July 2017 16:19 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:50:16 -0500, JimP. wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:25:09 -0500, Charles Richmond
> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/11/2017 11:34 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>>
>>> There were, therefore, two major battles in the road the Wintel platform took to
>>> dominance: the initial victory of PC-DOS/MS-DOS over CP/M, and the subsequent
>>> victory of Windows 3.1 over the Macintosh, AmigaDOS and the GEM Desktop.
>>>
>>
>> DO *not* forget that Microsoft was contracted by Apple to develop
>> software for the not-yet-existing Macintosh in the early 80's. Word and
>> Excel started out on the Mac. So Bill Gates had the insider information
>> about how the Apple GUI was to be programmed. It still took Bill until
>> Windows 95 to come up with a half-decent windowing system.
>
> Gates even said in the 1980s that his computer users had no need for
> all the graphics, mouse, stereo sound, etc. that the Macintosh and the
> Amiga had. Then when he added it to his OS, he tried to act like he
> invented it.
That I never heard of.
Didn't he also dismissed the internet as something not important in
around 1995?
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
your junior/senior prom had a daycare.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348532 is a reply to message #347133] |
Sun, 16 July 2017 16:25 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <871spgqgph.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, ank@spamfence.net says...
>
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:24:44 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> In article <87h8ydxwav.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, ank@spamfence.net says...
>>>
>>>> The marketing breakthrough perhaps but it was never Microsoft's strategic
>>>> direction. That was OS/2 until the IBM/Microsoft partnership collapsed,
>>>> then NT, which is still going strong.
>>>
>>> Still then (1990)?
>>>
>>> I remember the Dad of my girl friend back in 1987 worked at IBM and also
>>> had no good saying about Microsoft then. There was only MS-DOS around at
>>> that time. But he praised Microchannel and the upcoming OS (he didn't
>>> names it, but turned out it was OS/2). Then (early 1987) something must
>>> have been brewing already between IBM and Microsoft.
>>
>> OS/2 shipped in December 1987. IBM and Microsoft had their falling-out in
>> 1990, by which time Cutler was already onboard and working on NT, which is
>> currently in release 10.0 and called "Windows 10".
>
> Yes. That's why I find it amazing the IBM employee already bitched about
> Microsoft and MS-DOS in early 1987. Could be possible something was going
> on already in 1987 which did not make it to the public.
A lot of IBM people had trouble with the Microsoft partnership from the
git-go. IBM was perfectly capable of writing their own operating systems
without Microsoft's help. I was very surprised when the IBM PC shipped
with a non-IBM operating system and a non-IBM processor. Many people at
IBM really did not like the idea of MS-DOS being available for non-IBM
computers or being dependent on some college drop-out for critical system
software.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348536 is a reply to message #347133] |
Sun, 16 July 2017 17:31 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
> Yes. That's why I find it amazing the IBM employee already bitched
> about Microsoft and MS-DOS in early 1987. Could be possible something
> was going on already in 1987 which did not make it to the public.
march 1996 mdc at moscone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Developers_Confer ence
.... all the banners said "internet" ... but the constant refrain in the
sessions was "preserve your investment".
https://news.microsoft.com/1996/02/19/microsoft-to-host-larg est-internet-developers-conference/
https://everystevejobsvideo.com/steve-jobs-presents-webobjec ts-at-mspdc-1996-2/
some internal m'soft people commented that up until then people had
always been buying the latest release of software to get new
feature/function they wanted. however 1996 start to represent a turning
point, that the majority of all people had all the features that they
needed. it now changed to marketing campaign to get people to want new
things ... but not necessarily because they needed them (like getting
new car every year).
note late 80s, senior disk engineer got talk scheduled at the annual
world-wide communication group conference supposedly on 3174 performance
but started the talk with statement that the communication group was
going to be responsible for the demise of the disk division. The
communication group had corporate strategic ownership of everything that
crossed the datacenter walls and was fiercely fighting off client/server
and distributed computing trying to preserve its dumb terminal paradigm
and install base. The disk division was seeing data fleeing the
datacenter to more distributed computing friendly platforms with a drop
in disk sales. This datacenter stranglehold turns out to affect all
mainframe business and a few years later the company has gone into the
red. some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#terminal
Before IBM/PC had been announced, we had a group in silicon valley that
thought it was doing software for the IBM/PC ... every month or so, we
would re-affirm that Boca wasn't interested in doing software for the
IBM/PC and we could. Then Boca changes its mind and says if you want to
do software for the IBM/PC, you had to move to Boca ... and the whole
thing collapses ... and Boca announces MS/DOS. There were some comments
about corporate politics and Boca felt it was in better internal
political position if it outsourced software to external groups than
doing it themselves.
trivia, before ms/dos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS
there was seattle computer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Computer_Products
before seattle computer there was cp/m,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M
before doing cp/m, kildall worked with cp/67 (precursor to vm370)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/CMS
at npg school
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Postgraduate_School
.... cp/67 from cambridge science center, past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
past posts mentioning Moscone MDC:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#49 Virus propagation risks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003e.html#45 Computer programming was all about:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003h.html#22 Why did TCP become popular ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#62 The Incredible Shrinking Legacy Workforces
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003o.html#32 who invented the "popup" ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#34 Next generation processor architecture?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004e.html#31 [OT] Faces of terrorism
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004k.html#32 Frontiernet insists on being my firewall
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004l.html#51 Specifying all biz rules in relational data
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006b.html#14 Expanded Storage
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#50 DOS C prompt in "Vista"?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007s.html#18 Oddly good news week: Google announces a Caps library for Javascript
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#87 CompUSA to Close after Jan. 1st 2008
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008r.html#26 realtors (and GM, too!)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009q.html#43 The 50th Anniversary of the Legendary IBM 1401
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#63 who pioneered the WEB
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#66 What is the protocal for GMT offset in SMTP (e-mail) header
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#37 (slightly OT - Linux) Did IBM bet on the wrong OS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010j.html#36 Favourite computer history books?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010p.html#9 The IETF is probably the single element in the global equation of technology competition than has resulted in the INTERNET
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010p.html#40 The Great Cyberheist
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011c.html#49 Abhor, Retch, Ignite?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011c.html#50 IBM and the Computer Revolution
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011d.html#58 IBM and the Computer Revolution
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011f.html#15 Identifying Latest zOS Fixes
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011f.html#57 Are Tablets a Passing Fad?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#14 Happy 100th Birthday, IBM!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#15 Happy 100th Birthday, IBM!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011o.html#18 John R. Opel, RIP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011o.html#59 The lost art of real programming
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#141 With cloud computing back to old problems as DDos attacks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#81 The PC industry is heading for collapse
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#93 Where are all the old tech workers?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#2 What are the implication of the ongoing cyber attacks on critical infrastructure
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#18 Zeus/SpyEye 'Automatic Transfer' Module Masks Online Banking Theft
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#32 Zeus/SpyEye 'Automatic Transfer' Module Masks Online Banking Theft
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#37 Simulated PDP-11 Blinkenlight front panel for SimH
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#93 Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#97 Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#14 The growing openness of an organization's infrastructure has greatly impacted security landscape
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013.html#45 New HD
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013k.html#68 Steve B sees what investors think
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014e.html#30 Zeus malware found with valid digital certificate
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#10 It's all K&R's fault
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#11 Before the Internet: The golden age of online services
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014h.html#23 weird trivia
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015c.html#87 On a lighter note, even the Holograms are demonstrating
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015d.html#45 Western Union envisioned internet functionality
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#35 The real story of how the Internet became so vulnerable
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#90 These hackers warned the Internet would become a security disaster. Nobody listened
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015g.html#35 [Poll] Computing favorities
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015g.html#39 [Poll] Computing favorities
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016b.html#106 Computers anyone?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#69 Open DoD's Doors To Cyber Talent, Carter Asks Congress
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#79 Is it a lost cause?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016e.html#19 Is it a lost cause?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016e.html#35 How the internet was invented
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017b.html#38 Trump to sign cyber security order
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017d.html#92 Old hardware
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017e.html#8 Ironic old "fortune"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017e.html#90 Ransomware on Mainframe application ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017f.html#100 Jean Sammet, Co-Designer of a Pioneering Computer Language, Dies at 89
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017g.html#14 Mainframe Networking problems
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017g.html#16 The Microsoft security hole at the heart of Russian election hacking
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017g.html#46 Windows 10 Pro automatic update
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348538 is a reply to message #348531] |
Sun, 16 July 2017 19:07 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <87y3rop21y.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, ank@spamfence.net says...
>
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:50:16 -0500, JimP. wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:25:09 -0500, Charles Richmond
>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/11/2017 11:34 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>>>
>>>> There were, therefore, two major battles in the road the Wintel platform took to
>>>> dominance: the initial victory of PC-DOS/MS-DOS over CP/M, and the subsequent
>>>> victory of Windows 3.1 over the Macintosh, AmigaDOS and the GEM Desktop.
>>>>
>>>
>>> DO *not* forget that Microsoft was contracted by Apple to develop
>>> software for the not-yet-existing Macintosh in the early 80's. Word and
>>> Excel started out on the Mac. So Bill Gates had the insider information
>>> about how the Apple GUI was to be programmed. It still took Bill until
>>> Windows 95 to come up with a half-decent windowing system.
>>
>> Gates even said in the 1980s that his computer users had no need for
>> all the graphics, mouse, stereo sound, etc. that the Macintosh and the
>> Amiga had. Then when he added it to his OS, he tried to act like he
>> invented it.
>
> That I never heard of.
He did say, in 1984, that "The next generation of interesting software will
be done on the Macintosh, not the IBM PC". Given that Excel and Word for
the Mac shipped in 1985, he probably was talking about what was going on at
Microsoft.
> Didn't he also dismissed the internet as something not important in
> around 1995?
Not quite, "I see little commercial potential for the internet for the next
10 years" in 1994, then in 1995 "Today's Internet is not the information
highway I imagine, although you can think of it as the beginning of the
highway".
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348540 is a reply to message #348531] |
Sun, 16 July 2017 20:57 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 16:19:37 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach
<ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:50:16 -0500, JimP. wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:25:09 -0500, Charles Richmond
>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/11/2017 11:34 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>>>
>>>> There were, therefore, two major battles in the road the Wintel platform took to
>>>> dominance: the initial victory of PC-DOS/MS-DOS over CP/M, and the subsequent
>>>> victory of Windows 3.1 over the Macintosh, AmigaDOS and the GEM Desktop.
>>>>
>>>
>>> DO *not* forget that Microsoft was contracted by Apple to develop
>>> software for the not-yet-existing Macintosh in the early 80's. Word and
>>> Excel started out on the Mac. So Bill Gates had the insider information
>>> about how the Apple GUI was to be programmed. It still took Bill until
>>> Windows 95 to come up with a half-decent windowing system.
>>
>> Gates even said in the 1980s that his computer users had no need for
>> all the graphics, mouse, stereo sound, etc. that the Macintosh and the
>> Amiga had. Then when he added it to his OS, he tried to act like he
>> invented it.
>
> That I never heard of.
>
> Didn't he also dismissed the internet as something not important in
> around 1995?
Possible, but I don't remember that.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348541 is a reply to message #348532] |
Sun, 16 July 2017 22:42 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 2:25:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> IBM was perfectly capable of writing their own operating systems
> without Microsoft's help. I was very surprised when the IBM PC shipped
> with a non-IBM operating system and a non-IBM processor. Many people at
> IBM really did not like the idea of MS-DOS being available for non-IBM
> computers or being dependent on some college drop-out for critical system
> software.
This is all very true.
Why did IBM do that?
Why was the IBM PC a success, when the IBM 5100 was a failure?
Let's start with the second question first. The IBM PC was successful because:
- it was much cheaper than the IBM 5100; and
- it conformed to industry standards, at least to a degree: it resembled a CP/M
computer, despite being better.
Of course, the IBM PC came out later than the 5100, so naturally it would be
cheaper for its functionality.
IBM had already made the Displaywriter out of an 8086 (but it used EBCDIC
internally).
Somebody at IBM finally paid attention to Seymour Cray's response to the
"including the janitor" memo. IBM saw that the personal computer market was a
potential major source of revenue, which could even result in the displacement
of larger computers as an industry, but the senior management realized that the
traditional IBM structure was not sufficiently agile to effectively participate.
And thus the IBM Personal Computer was intentionally a skunkworks project,
handled by a small group isolated from the rest of the company. The people
involved didn't have the resources to design their own processor or write their
own operating system.
Yes: IBM knew how to make computers. But the personal computer marketplace was
very different from the markets for which IBM was used to making computers, and
so it had to do things differently. And that had leaving the processor design
and the operating system to others as a corollary.
IBM had a good run out of the IBM PC, even if Intel and Microsoft would up with
the enduring money tree out of it. They had their chance with the Personal
System/2 and the Micro Channel bus, and with OS/2, but they were not successful
in regaining control of the new standard.
Given that IBM was a major manufacturer of PowerPC chips, having designed the
architecture, it's a pity that they couldn't have bought *Apple* before it
switched to the Intel architecture. Presumably after buying Apple, they would
have been motivated to make good laptop versions of the PowerPC.
Yes, it would have been very nice for IBM if the IBM PC could have been both
fully designed in-house by IBM _and_ as successful as it was. But the use of an
operating system so much like CP/M, and the use of a processor so much like the
8080, was part of what made it so successful, so had IBM tried to have it all,
it would have had all of nothing.
IBM didn't make a mistake in the way it designed the IBM PC, it simply took the
route that was open to it.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348556 is a reply to message #348531] |
Mon, 17 July 2017 01:47 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-07-16, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> Didn't he also dismissed the internet as something not important in
> around 1995?
"If we don't have it, you don't need it."
The advent of networking caught Microsoft with their pants down.
--
/~\ 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: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348558 is a reply to message #348541] |
Mon, 17 July 2017 01:47 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-07-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> And thus the IBM Personal Computer was intentionally a skunkworks project,
> handled by a small group isolated from the rest of the company. The people
> involved didn't have the resources to design their own processor or write
> their own operating system.
IBM deliberately crippled the Personal Computer so as not to compete with its
Displaywriter. Besides, I don't think they had any idea how their Personal
Computer would take off.
> IBM had a good run out of the IBM PC, even if Intel and Microsoft would
> up with the enduring money tree out of it. They had their chance with the
> Personal System/2 and the Micro Channel bus, and with OS/2, but they were
> not successful in regaining control of the new standard.
IBM realized that they had made a mistake in "opening the box" by publishing
the complete specifications of the Personal Computer. Micro Channel was their
attempt to close the box again. But, like Pandora's Box, it was too late;
the industry developed EISA and collectively thumbed their noses at IBM.
> Yes, it would have been very nice for IBM if the IBM PC could have been both
> fully designed in-house by IBM _and_ as successful as it was. But the use of
> an operating system so much like CP/M, and the use of a processor so much like
> the 8080, was part of what made it so successful,
by putting the "backward" in "backward compatible"
> so had IBM tried to have it all, it would have had all of nothing.
The fact that the IBM PC was so successful was great for IBM. It wasn't so much
due to its technical excellence (perish the thought!), but because those three
letters on the name plate finally gave a "personal computer" legitimacy in the
office. ("Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.") But (see above) they lost
control of it - something which a control-oriented company like IBM doesn't
deal well with.
> IBM didn't make a mistake in the way it designed the IBM PC, it simply took
> the route that was open to it.
Subject to their own corporate restraints. However, their size allowed them
to impose the IBM PC's architecture on the market despite its flaws.
--
/~\ 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: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348565 is a reply to message #348541] |
Mon, 17 July 2017 04:29 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 19:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> - it conformed to industry standards, at least to a degree: it resembled
> a CP/M computer, despite being better.
The last three words are questionable - a 6MHz Z80B with 256K of
bank switched memory and MP/M was a faster and more flexible computer than
an IBM PC with its 4.77MHz 8086 and PC-DOS.
--
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: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348568 is a reply to message #348556] |
Mon, 17 July 2017 05:41 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <okhj1k12etg@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid says...
>
> On 2017-07-16, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> Didn't he also dismissed the internet as something not important in
>> around 1995?
>
> "If we don't have it, you don't need it."
>
> The advent of networking caught Microsoft with their pants down.
Now let's see, MS-Net shipped some time around 1985 and was replaced by LAN
Manager in 1990. That's hardly "getting caught with their pants down".
What caught then and everybody else by surprise was the success of the Web,
which came long after networking.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348569 is a reply to message #348558] |
Mon, 17 July 2017 05:48 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <okhj1p62etg@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid says...
>
> On 2017-07-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> And thus the IBM Personal Computer was intentionally a skunkworks project,
>> handled by a small group isolated from the rest of the company. The people
>> involved didn't have the resources to design their own processor or write
>> their own operating system.
>
> IBM deliberately crippled the Personal Computer so as not to compete with its
> Displaywriter. Besides, I don't think they had any idea how their Personal
> Computer would take off.
In what way was it "crippled"?
>> IBM had a good run out of the IBM PC, even if Intel and Microsoft would
>> up with the enduring money tree out of it. They had their chance with the
>> Personal System/2 and the Micro Channel bus, and with OS/2, but they were
>> not successful in regaining control of the new standard.
>
> IBM realized that they had made a mistake in "opening the box" by publishing
> the complete specifications of the Personal Computer. Micro Channel was their
> attempt to close the box again. But, like Pandora's Box, it was too late;
> the industry developed EISA and collectively thumbed their noses at IBM.
They could have closed the box if they had gone for performance instead of
making it different for the sake of being different. They didn't.
>
>> Yes, it would have been very nice for IBM if the IBM PC could have been both
>> fully designed in-house by IBM _and_ as successful as it was. But the use of
>> an operating system so much like CP/M, and the use of a processor so much like
>> the 8080, was part of what made it so successful,
>
> by putting the "backward" in "backward compatible"
I doubt that either of those were a major part of its success. If it had
looked and worked like a Mac it would likely have done as well.
>> so had IBM tried to have it all, it would have had all of nothing.
>
> The fact that the IBM PC was so successful was great for IBM. It wasn't so much
> due to its technical excellence (perish the thought!), but because those three
> letters on the name plate finally gave a "personal computer" legitimacy in the
> office. ("Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.") But (see above) they lost
> control of it - something which a control-oriented company like IBM doesn't
> deal well with.
Bingo. IBM with third-party compatibility was the real key.
>> IBM didn't make a mistake in the way it designed the IBM PC, it simply took
>> the route that was open to it.
>
> Subject to their own corporate restraints. However, their size allowed them
> to impose the IBM PC's architecture on the market despite its flaws.
No, it didn't. Microchannel was an attempt to impose an architecture.
Nobody forced the clonemakers to copy the PC and many didn't. Since the
software developers targeted IBM and circumvented the operating system, the
ones tht didn't failed. That wasn't IBM's doing, that was the market's
doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348582 is a reply to message #348569] |
Mon, 17 July 2017 10:10 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 3:48:50 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <okhj1p62etg@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid says...
>> IBM deliberately crippled the Personal Computer so as not to compete with its
>> Displaywriter. Besides, I don't think they had any idea how their Personal
>> Computer would take off.
> In what way was it "crippled"?
Well, the Displaywriter used an 8086, while the PC used an 8088. But that was to
make it cheaper to manufacture. Same with the buckling spring keyboard instead
of the beam spring keyboard.
Now, they _did_ cripple the IBM 5100 so that it wouldn't compete with their
mainframes - they didn't let you run other 370 programs on the microcoded 370
used to run APL on it.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
