| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354926 is a reply to message #354924] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 07:57   |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:45:36 -0400, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> The PDP-8 worked well for line-oriented input, handling
>>> charafter-at-a-
>>> time interrupts and generating one interrupt to the PDP-10 for each
>>> line.
>>> But TECO required character-at-a-time input.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, TECO does not *require* character mode. However,
>> its break character is escape, not newline. But in order to implement
>> that,
>> it might have been necessary to use character-mode system calls
>> (UUO/JSYS), not line-mode calls. Dunno -- see TECO source for answer.
>> I can't remember the details of the those calls; it might have been
>> possible there was one with the capability to specify a set of break
>> characters -- see manuals for answer.
>>
>>
>>
> Some systems allowed you to provide a list of characters to the
> front-end that would cause an interrupt. Other characters would be
> buffered and transmitted in a block. Echo/no echo was also been handled
> by the FE.
True (but see my followup). The TOPS-10 monitor I used did not appear to
have a way of doing that.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354927 is a reply to message #354921] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 07:32 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 23 Oct 2017 09:50:49 GMT
mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2017-10-23, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 00:15:54 -0500, Charles Richmond
>>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/2017 2:18 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> > On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 4:47:15 AM UTC-4, ma...@mail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I forget the name of the resident text editor on the amiga, Cygnused
>>>> >> rapidly took over, but there was two, at least, CP/M type thingies,
>>>> >> and of which had a lot of `vi' (commands, whatever) such as pressing
>>>> >> `5' and 'p' and repeating lines. Suddenly, the world was a bigger
>>>> >> place
>>>> >
>>>> > MS-DOS 5.0 brought out a new text editor, combined with QBASIC.
>>>> > Very nice.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> It ain't easy, but ISTM there is a way to run QBASIC under Windows
>>>> 10. (This may require also running some sort of emulator...)
>>>
>>> If you're running 32-bit Windows 10 it should run fine. If you are
>>> running 64 bit you need to run in a VM--VMWare Player is free for
>>> personal use.
>>>
>>
>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, doesn't windows?
>>
>
> Well, IMHExperience, sometimes. Slackware needs 32libs for many, or
> summat of the like.
That's to be expected, the program needs to link to the 32 bit
version of the library code to generate the entire 32 bit in memory image.
The 64 bit kernel supports loading (dynamically as needed) and executing
the 32 bit binaries and supports the 32 bit OS calls.
--
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: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354928 is a reply to message #354907] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 10:41 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 9:36:06 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Damn. I've responded to your post twice and forgot to mention the
>> fact that the terminals used were the gray ASR35s (or 36s..I seem to
>> not be able to remember the correct number; one is the gray one and
>> the other was the first upper/lower case hard copy TTY which was
>> broken 90% of the time).
>
> ASR 33: the ubiquitous upper-case only medium duty Teletype
I used those but had to purposefully slow down my typing rate
because anything faster than 35 WPM broke them.
> ASR 35: the heavy-duty upper-case only Teletype
Yup. That's the one which was most common in the terminal rooms
at DEC.
>
> ASR 38: the light-duty upper- and lower- case Teletype
> ASR 37: the heavy-duty upper- and lower- case Teletype
We had one of those. Most of the time, the parts were laying on the
floor. It was not a robust machine.
>
> The ASR 33 was originally designed as light-duty, but got upgraded to
medium-
> duty with experience in its use. The ASR 38 had no such luck, and is no
doubt
> the one you are remembering.
Perhaps. The number 7 is what pops into my head....never 38.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354929 is a reply to message #354905] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 10:41 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:32:33 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:38:11 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> > On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:47:14 +0000, mausg wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 2017-10-20, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> >>> On 20 Oct 2017 13:56:41 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Btw. I never used CP/M until may be two years ago. My first
>>>> >>>>> computer "OS"
>>>> >>>>> was in the Commodore 64, then the Amiga, then Windows 95. But
>>>> >>>>> reading about CP/M made me interested in that. So I also ran some
>>>> >>>>> Z80 machines, running CP/M themselves in an emulator (M.A.M.E.).
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> the command might be ED but is it a copy of the LINED
>>>> >>>> functionality?
>>>> >>>> That was the question I was answering. Sorry for my confusion.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I never came across LINED so cannot tell.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So far I ran CP/M only on a Kaypro II and various Osbornes - all
>>>> >>> emulated. There was just ED. But I also got myself WordStar. ED is
>>>> >>> a real PITA.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I forget the name of the resident text editor on the amiga, Cygnused
>>>> >> rapidly took over, but there was two, at least, CP/M type thingies,
>>>> >> and of which had a lot of `vi' (commands, whatever) such as pressing
>>>> >> `5' and 'p' and repeating lines. Suddenly, the world was a bigger
>>>> >> place
>>>> >
>>>> > What amazed me was the BBC microcomputer. At work, I installed an
>>>> > assembler ROM into mine so that I could modify the Kermit for it.
>>>> >
>>>> > The ROM came with a 6502 assembler, and an editor. I was overjoyed
>>>> > top discover no learning curve - it was TECO.
>>>>
>>>> TECO was my first editor. On TOPS-10, type ahead was allowed so my
>>>> editing could fly way ahead of the printing of the last edit which
>>>> usually ended with -2T2T$$. Then somebody decided that TECO was
>>>> slowing down the system and Tape Prep was told to use SOS. What a
>>>> fuckinng PITA. I had to wait for the entire line to type out before
>>>> going on to the next line to edit, which had to type out before I
>>>> could edit that one. It slowed my editing time by >75%. Then the guy
>>>> who made the edict wanted me to do an edit. I told him it would take
>>>> a week if I had to use SOSX but would take a day if I could use TECO.
>>>> The edict faded away. Some of the gals liked SOSX so they used that.
>>>> I hated it so I used TECO. My usual edits never expanded beyond 2K
>>>> because just about everything had a page-sized form feed. I never
>>>> understood how the person who did the study came to the conclusion
>>>> that TECO was the culprit which bogged down the system.
>>>
>>> It probably did have an effect. TECO needed an interrupt after every
>>> character, instead of after every line.
>>
>> That's not how TOPS-10 worked.
>
> Please explain further. If TECO were to respond after each character (as
> it had to, to work), how did it do that?
TECO didn't have to; the monitor did in order to echo the character
as soon as it was typed.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354930 is a reply to message #354929] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 11:12 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:41:40 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:32:33 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:38:11 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:47:14 +0000, mausg wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 2017-10-20, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 20 Oct 2017 13:56:41 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Btw. I never used CP/M until may be two years ago. My first
>>>> >>>>>> computer "OS"
>>>> >>>>>> was in the Commodore 64, then the Amiga, then Windows 95. But
>>>> >>>>>> reading about CP/M made me interested in that. So I also ran
>>>> >>>>>> some Z80 machines, running CP/M themselves in an emulator
>>>> >>>>>> (M.A.M.E.).
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> the command might be ED but is it a copy of the LINED
>>>> >>>>> functionality?
>>>> >>>>> That was the question I was answering. Sorry for my confusion.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I never came across LINED so cannot tell.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> So far I ran CP/M only on a Kaypro II and various Osbornes - all
>>>> >>>> emulated. There was just ED. But I also got myself WordStar. ED
>>>> >>>> is a real PITA.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I forget the name of the resident text editor on the amiga,
>>>> >>> Cygnused rapidly took over, but there was two, at least, CP/M type
>>>> >>> thingies, and of which had a lot of `vi' (commands, whatever) such
>>>> >>> as pressing `5' and 'p' and repeating lines. Suddenly, the world
>>>> >>> was a bigger place
>>>> >>
>>>> >> What amazed me was the BBC microcomputer. At work, I installed an
>>>> >> assembler ROM into mine so that I could modify the Kermit for it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The ROM came with a 6502 assembler, and an editor. I was overjoyed
>>>> >> top discover no learning curve - it was TECO.
>>>> >
>>>> > TECO was my first editor. On TOPS-10, type ahead was allowed so my
>>>> > editing could fly way ahead of the printing of the last edit which
>>>> > usually ended with -2T2T$$. Then somebody decided that TECO was
>>>> > slowing down the system and Tape Prep was told to use SOS. What a
>>>> > fuckinng PITA. I had to wait for the entire line to type out before
>>>> > going on to the next line to edit, which had to type out before I
>>>> > could edit that one. It slowed my editing time by >75%. Then the
>>>> > guy who made the edict wanted me to do an edit. I told him it would
>>>> > take a week if I had to use SOSX but would take a day if I could use
>>>> > TECO. The edict faded away. Some of the gals liked SOSX so they used
>>>> > that. I hated it so I used TECO. My usual edits never expanded
>>>> > beyond 2K because just about everything had a page-sized form feed.
>>>> > I never understood how the person who did the study came to the
>>>> > conclusion that TECO was the culprit which bogged down the system.
>>>>
>>>> It probably did have an effect. TECO needed an interrupt after every
>>>> character, instead of after every line.
>>>
>>> That's not how TOPS-10 worked.
>>
>> Please explain further. If TECO were to respond after each character
>> (as it had to, to work), how did it do that?
>
> TECO didn't have to; the monitor did in order to echo the character as
> soon as it was typed.
Splitting hairs. It still required an interrupt after each character. In
line mode, the PDP-9 could do that.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354931 is a reply to message #354930] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 11:26 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:12:15 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> > It probably did have an effect. TECO needed an interrupt after every
>>>> > character, instead of after every line.
>>>>
>>>> That's not how TOPS-10 worked.
>>>
>>> Please explain further. If TECO were to respond after each character
>>> (as it had to, to work), how did it do that?
>>
>> TECO didn't have to; the monitor did in order to echo the character as
>> soon as it was typed.
>
> Splitting hairs. It still required an interrupt after each character. In
> line mode, the PDP-9 could do that.
I meant PDP-8, of course.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354932 is a reply to message #354898] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 11:34 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/22/2017 10:32 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> Yes, our Dec=20 installation was minimal, but I enjoyed using the
>> machine! Most students only knew how to use the IBM 370/155, so the
>> Dec-20 was very available.
>
> Did you do any MACRO-10 programming on it?
>
No, I did *no* assembly language on the DEC-20 at university. Then I
wrote FORTRAN IV, Pascal, and SNOBOL4 programs mainly. After using the
IBM 370/155 to do my homework programs for COBOL class, I converted them
to run on the DEC-20. It was *not* difficult, as I remember.
A couple of years ago, I acquired a copy of Ralph Gorin's book
_Introduction to DECSystem-20 Assembly Language Programming_, published
by Digital Equipment Corporation Press. I got the used copy pretty cheap
from a used bookseller. So I now have some familiarity with the
assembly language.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354933 is a reply to message #354890] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 11:39 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/22/2017 5:58 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 00:13:34 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2017 12:14 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:38:11 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> > On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:47:14 +0000, mausg wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 2017-10-20, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> >>> On 20 Oct 2017 13:56:41 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Btw. I never used CP/M until may be two years ago. My first
>>>> >>>>> computer "OS"
>>>> >>>>> was in the Commodore 64, then the Amiga, then Windows 95. But
>>>> >>>>> reading about CP/M made me interested in that. So I also ran some
>>>> >>>>> Z80 machines, running CP/M themselves in an emulator (M.A.M.E.).
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> the command might be ED but is it a copy of the LINED
>>>> >>>> functionality?
>>>> >>>> That was the question I was answering. Sorry for my confusion.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I never came across LINED so cannot tell.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So far I ran CP/M only on a Kaypro II and various Osbornes - all
>>>> >>> emulated. There was just ED. But I also got myself WordStar. ED is
>>>> >>> a real PITA.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I forget the name of the resident text editor on the amiga, Cygnused
>>>> >> rapidly took over, but there was two, at least, CP/M type thingies,
>>>> >> and of which had a lot of `vi' (commands, whatever) such as pressing
>>>> >> `5' and 'p' and repeating lines. Suddenly, the world was a bigger
>>>> >> place
>>>> >
>>>> > What amazed me was the BBC microcomputer. At work, I installed an
>>>> > assembler ROM into mine so that I could modify the Kermit for it.
>>>> >
>>>> > The ROM came with a 6502 assembler, and an editor. I was overjoyed
>>>> > top discover no learning curve - it was TECO.
>>>>
>>>> TECO was my first editor. On TOPS-10, type ahead was allowed so my
>>>> editing could fly way ahead of the printing of the last edit which
>>>> usually ended with -2T2T$$. Then somebody decided that TECO was
>>>> slowing down the system and Tape Prep was told to use SOS. What a
>>>> fuckinng PITA. I had to wait for the entire line to type out before
>>>> going on to the next line to edit, which had to type out before I
>>>> could edit that one. It slowed my editing time by >75%. Then the guy
>>>> who made the edict wanted me to do an edit. I told him it would take
>>>> a week if I had to use SOSX but would take a day if I could use TECO.
>>>> The edict faded away. Some of the gals liked SOSX so they used that.
>>>> I hated it so I used TECO. My usual edits never expanded beyond 2K
>>>> because just about everything had a page-sized form feed. I never
>>>> understood how the person who did the study came to the conclusion
>>>> that TECO was the culprit which bogged down the system.
>>>
>>> It probably did have an effect. TECO needed an interrupt after every
>>> character, instead of after every line.
>>>
>>>
>> I thought that the later Dec-10's had a PDP-8 or PDP-11 front end that
>> handled the character-at-a-time interrupts... to free up the main
>> processor.
>
> That is true - the KA-10 I first used did.
>
> But TECO still needed to interact after every character, and all the
> PDP-8 did was bit-bang - the PDP-10 still needed to know about every
> individual character.
>
> The PDP-8 worked well for line-oriented input, handling charafter-at-a-
> time interrupts and generating one interrupt to the PDP-10 for each line.
> But TECO required character-at-a-time input.
>
You must be right... but ISTM that none of the commands actually
executed until the double-escape key presses at the end of the command
line. It seems a waste for the -10 to be aware of each character press...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354934 is a reply to message #354920] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 11:47 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/23/2017 4:43 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:20:22 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:22:32 +0000, Questor wrote:
>
>>>> The PDP-8 worked well for line-oriented input, handling charafter-at-a-
>>>> time interrupts and generating one interrupt to the PDP-10 for each
>>>> line.
>>>> But TECO required character-at-a-time input.
>>>
>>> Strictly speaking, TECO does not *require* character mode. However,
>>> its break character is escape, not newline. But in order to implement
>>> that,
>>> it might have been necessary to use character-mode system calls
>>> (UUO/JSYS), not line-mode calls. Dunno -- see TECO source for answer.
>>> I can't remember the details of the those calls; it might have been
>>> possible there was one with the capability to specify a set of break
>>> characters -- see manuals for answer.
>>
>> If one could do a set of break characters, that would help. Even then it
>> would be a slightly heavier load than line input, I guess.
>>
>> I believe that / (for help on an error) would have needed to be a break
>> character too.
>
> I just checked:
>
> - Yes, TECO would respond to a lone / immediately.
> - I was using a monitor around 506027, November 1973, when I first
> encountered TECO.
> - I have a monitor calls manual from December 1973. It shows ESC as a
> break character, but not normal printing characters. To get the effect
> TECO needed, one had to use the Special Programmed Operator Service UUO
> for single character input - INCHRW (TTCALL 0,ADR).
>
> So, to get back to what I was saying to Barb, it *would* have been more
> expensive to use TECO. I know that I was one of the few TECO users -
> people were encouragd to use an in-house line mode editor. I just *had*
> to be different, and it was worth it, as I ended up using TECO on RT-11,
> RSX, VMS and the BBC microcomputer - at least. I even have it here right
> now on FreeBSD.
>
ISTM that here is a version of TECO written in the C language. I do
know a lot about this port or if it supports the more complex commands
of a full TECO.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354935 is a reply to message #354909] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 11:55 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/22/2017 4:04 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 1:46:53 PM UTC-6, Bob Eager wrote:
>
>> KSR 33: the ASR-33 without the paper tape reader and punch
>
> Yes, I should have been more accurate, and referred to the "Model 33 Teletype",
> which came in ASR (Automatic Send-Recieve), KSR (Keyboard Send-Recieve), and RO
> (Recieve-Only) configurations.
>
> But I did not want to get bogged down in issues other than the one at hand,
> giving the list of applicable model numbers.
>
> For 5-level code, there was the Model 19, that had a moving type basket with
> type bars like in a conventional typewriter; the Model 32, which was the 5-level
> version of the 33; and several others. I believe the Model 28 was one of the
> heavy-duty ones, but I don't remember a lot of *those* model numbers by heart,
> although I'm sure they're easily looked up on the Web.
>
At the university I attended, the school newspaper had a teletype
connection to a news service, AP I think, but it might have been UPI. I
believe the journalism students thought that was the "big time"!
Anyway, the teletype unit was a printer-only unit that seemed to be held
together with masking tape. It was a real piece of junk!!! Any minute
I expected it would fall apart. That unit is where the word came
through that Nixon had resigned in 1974.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354936 is a reply to message #354928] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 11:59 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/23/2017 9:41 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 9:36:06 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> Damn. I've responded to your post twice and forgot to mention the
>>> fact that the terminals used were the gray ASR35s (or 36s..I seem to
>>> not be able to remember the correct number; one is the gray one and
>>> the other was the first upper/lower case hard copy TTY which was
>>> broken 90% of the time).
>>
>> ASR 33: the ubiquitous upper-case only medium duty Teletype
What teletype units were being used in this famous picture of Ken
Thompson and Dennis Ritchie using the PDP-11???
http://tinyurl.com/otzn6m7
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354937 is a reply to message #354914] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 12:03 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/22/2017 9:08 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 6:04:41 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, doesn't windows?
>
> Oh, yes, 64-bit Windows runs 32-bit programs just fine. It's *16-bit* Windows
> programs that don't run. And that's due to a limitation in how Intel processors
> handle the 64-bit mode - they can't switch into the 32-bit mode that can do all
> the 16-bit stuff without rebooting... sort of like the same mistake they made
> with the 286. You'ld think they'd know better by now.
>
> 32-bit programs run in 64-bit mode _or_ 32-bit mode; 64-bit programs need 64-bit
> mode, and 16-bit programs need 32-bit mode. So it can run the 32-bit programs,
> even though it can't switch into 32-bit mode.
>
Many notice that the compiled adventure games from <ifarchive.org> will
*not* run on 64-bit Windows 10. Is this because those adventure
programs were compiled for 16-bit systems???
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354938 is a reply to message #354936] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 13:22 |
Alfred Falk
Messages: 195
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote in news:osl3lq$326$1@dont-
email.me:
> On 10/23/2017 9:41 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 9:36:06 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Damn. I've responded to your post twice and forgot to mention the
>>>> fact that the terminals used were the gray ASR35s (or 36s..I seem to
>>>> not be able to remember the correct number; one is the gray one and
>>>> the other was the first upper/lower case hard copy TTY which was
>>>> broken 90% of the time).
>>>
>>> ASR 33: the ubiquitous upper-case only medium duty Teletype
>
> What teletype units were being used in this famous picture of Ken
> Thompson and Dennis Ritchie using the PDP-11???
>
> http://tinyurl.com/otzn6m7
Those look like ASR33's to me.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354939 is a reply to message #354934] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 14:52 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:47:27 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 4:43 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:20:22 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:22:32 +0000, Questor wrote:
>>
>>>> > The PDP-8 worked well for line-oriented input, handling
>>>> > charafter-at-a-
>>>> > time interrupts and generating one interrupt to the PDP-10 for each
>>>> > line.
>>>> > But TECO required character-at-a-time input.
>>>>
>>>> Strictly speaking, TECO does not *require* character mode. However,
>>>> its break character is escape, not newline. But in order to
>>>> implement that,
>>>> it might have been necessary to use character-mode system calls
>>>> (UUO/JSYS), not line-mode calls. Dunno -- see TECO source for
>>>> answer.
>>>> I can't remember the details of the those calls; it might have been
>>>> possible there was one with the capability to specify a set of break
>>>> characters -- see manuals for answer.
>>>
>>> If one could do a set of break characters, that would help. Even then
>>> it would be a slightly heavier load than line input, I guess.
>>>
>>> I believe that / (for help on an error) would have needed to be a
>>> break character too.
>>
>> I just checked:
>>
>> - Yes, TECO would respond to a lone / immediately.
>> - I was using a monitor around 506027, November 1973, when I first
>> encountered TECO.
>> - I have a monitor calls manual from December 1973. It shows ESC as a
>> break character, but not normal printing characters. To get the
>> effect TECO needed, one had to use the Special Programmed Operator
>> Service UUO for single character input - INCHRW (TTCALL 0,ADR).
>>
>> So, to get back to what I was saying to Barb, it *would* have been more
>> expensive to use TECO. I know that I was one of the few TECO users -
>> people were encouragd to use an in-house line mode editor. I just *had*
>> to be different, and it was worth it, as I ended up using TECO on
>> RT-11,
>> RSX, VMS and the BBC microcomputer - at least. I even have it here
>> right now on FreeBSD.
>>
>>
> ISTM that here is a version of TECO written in the C language. I do
> know a lot about this port or if it supports the more complex commands
> of a full TECO.
I think there are multiple versions. I haven't investigated anything
advanced, but I just took a look: it implements a whole load of ED, ET
and EZ flags. There is a list of implemented commands (one per line) that
is 212 lines long!
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354940 is a reply to message #354933] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 14:54 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:39:10 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 10/22/2017 5:58 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 00:13:34 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/21/2017 12:14 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:38:11 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:47:14 +0000, mausg wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 2017-10-20, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 20 Oct 2017 13:56:41 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Btw. I never used CP/M until may be two years ago. My first
>>>> >>>>>> computer "OS"
>>>> >>>>>> was in the Commodore 64, then the Amiga, then Windows 95. But
>>>> >>>>>> reading about CP/M made me interested in that. So I also ran
>>>> >>>>>> some Z80 machines, running CP/M themselves in an emulator
>>>> >>>>>> (M.A.M.E.).
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> the command might be ED but is it a copy of the LINED
>>>> >>>>> functionality?
>>>> >>>>> That was the question I was answering. Sorry for my confusion.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I never came across LINED so cannot tell.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> So far I ran CP/M only on a Kaypro II and various Osbornes - all
>>>> >>>> emulated. There was just ED. But I also got myself WordStar. ED
>>>> >>>> is a real PITA.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I forget the name of the resident text editor on the amiga,
>>>> >>> Cygnused rapidly took over, but there was two, at least, CP/M type
>>>> >>> thingies, and of which had a lot of `vi' (commands, whatever) such
>>>> >>> as pressing `5' and 'p' and repeating lines. Suddenly, the world
>>>> >>> was a bigger place
>>>> >>
>>>> >> What amazed me was the BBC microcomputer. At work, I installed an
>>>> >> assembler ROM into mine so that I could modify the Kermit for it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The ROM came with a 6502 assembler, and an editor. I was overjoyed
>>>> >> top discover no learning curve - it was TECO.
>>>> >
>>>> > TECO was my first editor. On TOPS-10, type ahead was allowed so my
>>>> > editing could fly way ahead of the printing of the last edit which
>>>> > usually ended with -2T2T$$. Then somebody decided that TECO was
>>>> > slowing down the system and Tape Prep was told to use SOS. What a
>>>> > fuckinng PITA. I had to wait for the entire line to type out before
>>>> > going on to the next line to edit, which had to type out before I
>>>> > could edit that one. It slowed my editing time by >75%. Then the
>>>> > guy who made the edict wanted me to do an edit. I told him it would
>>>> > take a week if I had to use SOSX but would take a day if I could use
>>>> > TECO. The edict faded away. Some of the gals liked SOSX so they used
>>>> > that. I hated it so I used TECO. My usual edits never expanded
>>>> > beyond 2K because just about everything had a page-sized form feed.
>>>> > I never understood how the person who did the study came to the
>>>> > conclusion that TECO was the culprit which bogged down the system.
>>>>
>>>> It probably did have an effect. TECO needed an interrupt after every
>>>> character, instead of after every line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I thought that the later Dec-10's had a PDP-8 or PDP-11 front end that
>>> handled the character-at-a-time interrupts... to free up the main
>>> processor.
>>
>> That is true - the KA-10 I first used did.
>>
>> But TECO still needed to interact after every character, and all the
>> PDP-8 did was bit-bang - the PDP-10 still needed to know about every
>> individual character.
>>
>> The PDP-8 worked well for line-oriented input, handling charafter-at-a-
>> time interrupts and generating one interrupt to the PDP-10 for each
>> line.
>> But TECO required character-at-a-time input.
>>
>>
> You must be right... but ISTM that none of the commands actually
> executed until the double-escape key presses at the end of the command
> line. It seems a waste for the -10 to be aware of each character
> press...
What about the / command? That executed immediately. There may have been
others.
wolf#
tecoc ...share/
doc/teco 19:52
*i
aaaaa
$$
*szzz$$
?SRH Search failure "zzz"
*/
A search command not preceded by a colon modifier and
not within an iteration has failed to find the specified
"text". After an S search fails the pointer is left at
the beginning of the buffer. After an N or _ search
fails the last page of the input file has been input
and, in the case of N, output, and the buffer is
cleared. In the case of an N search it is usually
necessary to close the output file and reopen it for
continued editing.
*
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354941 is a reply to message #354936] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 14:55 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:59:57 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 9:41 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 9:36:06 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Damn. I've responded to your post twice and forgot to mention the
>>>> fact that the terminals used were the gray ASR35s (or 36s..I seem to
>>>> not be able to remember the correct number; one is the gray one and
>>>> the other was the first upper/lower case hard copy TTY which was
>>>> broken 90% of the time).
>>>
>>> ASR 33: the ubiquitous upper-case only medium duty Teletype
>
> What teletype units were being used in this famous picture of Ken
> Thompson and Dennis Ritchie using the PDP-11???
>
> http://tinyurl.com/otzn6m7
The one on the right is almost certainly an ASR-33. The one on the left
probably is, but I can't see the paper tape unit as that area is obscured.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354942 is a reply to message #354877] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 15:17 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 7:19:29 PM UTC-4, Alan Frisbie wrote:
> Small timing errors with the hammers would cause the printed
> character to vary in position. IBM recognized that the human
> eye/brain was much less sensitive to horizontal variations than
> to vertical variations. This made IBM printers look much
> better than the competition, even though the position variations
> were of the same magnitude.
Ironically, today, when looking at old 1403 printouts, they don't
look as good, probably because we're used to the precision of laser
printed output. Likewise when we see typewritten documents--here
are there and a few letters not quite aligned properly horizontally
or vertically; we're used to the perfection of laser printers.
The Selectric typewriter, being very fast and without a shift, tended
to be as close to perfect as possible. On normal typewriters, with the
typebars, sometimes hitting two keys too fast would cause a misalignment,
also not properly engaging and then disengaging the shift would cause
some misalignment.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354943 is a reply to message #354904] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 15:26 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 1:47:33 PM UTC-4, Bob Eager wrote:
>> Damn. I've responded to your post twice and forgot to mention the fact
>> that the terminals used were the gray ASR35s (or 36s..I seem to not be
>> able to remember the correct number; one is the gray one and the other
>> was the first upper/lower case hard copy TTY which was broken 90% of the
>> time).
>
> All we had were ASR-33s. This was about 1973.
It seemed that most Teletype users had the model 33, which was the cheaper
light duty model. A few users had the model 35, which was the heavy duty
unit. I remember our HP-2000 had a model 35 for the console unit, but
all the terminals were model 33's.
There was also a model 32, which was identical to the 33 except the 32
was for Baudot (5 bit) service and had a three-row keyboard. That was
generally used for Western Union Telex service, although in the very
early days, it sometimes served as a timesharing terminal.
(As mentioned, Western Union hoped to be a data services provider.
But apparently it was cheaper for users to have a dial-up terminal
on a POTS line rather than a Telex terminal. I have no idea what
Telex rates were, but I suspect it was more oriented for long distance
communication than local. Plus, computers tended to use ASCII and
Telex required an ASCII-Baudot conversion plus required the user to
constantly shift between LETTERS and FIGURES.)
The Teletype model 33 was hailed as a great technological advance
because, for its day, it was a lot cheaper than other units. But
while it was affordable for business and schools, it was nowhere
affordable for home use.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354944 is a reply to message #354925] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 15:00 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:45:37 -0400
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 20:04:41 -0400
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:58:44 -0500
>>>> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I didn't realize that anyone sold, in that era, anything with that
>>>> > little memory. Is this the record for for small memory? Say after
>>>> > the initial "invention" period, 1958 or beyond.
>>>>
>>>> In the mid 1970s I used an IBM 1130 with 4K words of core and
>>>> three 1.5Mb disk drives.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You had three disk drives? such luxury!
>>
>> A very useful luxury, it made disk copying reasonably painless.
>>
>
> For sure. We had one drive and no tape. Any backup was to cards!
Ouch, doing a disc copy with one drive must have been impossibly
tedious - I make it around fifty disc swaps with 4K words core, surely
nobody ever did that.
--
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: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354945 is a reply to message #354909] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 15:32 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 5:04:11 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> For 5-level code, there was the Model 19, that had a moving type basket with
> type bars like in a conventional typewriter; the Model 32, which was the 5-level
> version of the 33; and several others. I believe the Model 28 was one of the
> heavy-duty ones, but I don't remember a lot of *those* model numbers by heart,
> although I'm sure they're easily looked up on the Web.
The Model 28 was the older but very popular heavy duty Teletype for
Baudot (5 bit) use. Though developed in the early 1950s, it remained
in production for a long time. Western Union was tightly wedded to them.
According to Wikipedia, production of both the models 28 and 33
was discontinued in 1981. The following provide interesting
background information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_28
http://www.navy-radio.com/manuals/tty/Five_Level_TTY_Brochur e.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_33
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354946 is a reply to message #354914] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 15:33 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 10:08:16 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 6:04:41 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, doesn't windows?
>
> Oh, yes, 64-bit Windows runs 32-bit programs just fine. It's *16-bit* Windows
> programs that don't run. And that's due to a limitation in how Intel processors
> handle the 64-bit mode - they can't switch into the 32-bit mode that can do all
> the 16-bit stuff without rebooting... sort of like the same mistake they made
> with the 286. You'ld think they'd know better by now.
How would know if an old Windows program is 32 bit or 16 bit?
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #354947 is a reply to message #354928] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 15:38 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 10:42:11 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> ASR 33: the ubiquitous upper-case only medium duty Teletype
>
> I used those but had to purposefully slow down my typing rate
> because anything faster than 35 WPM broke them.
A Teletype 33 in timesharing service could handle 10 characters
a second or roughly 100 words per minute.
Admittedly, the Teletype keyboard was not designed to facilitate
speed. But once you got your tempo down it worked satisfactory.
Note that some Teletypes were connected to slower networks and
could be limited to as slow as 60 words per minute, a speed many
typists could exceed.
In my humble opinion, one of things that hurt Western Union in
data communications was that many of their lines were limited
to 60 WPM Baudot and paper tape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355272 is a reply to message #354941] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 15:46 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-4, Bob Eager wrote:
>> What teletype units were being used in this famous picture of Ken
>> Thompson and Dennis Ritchie using the PDP-11???
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/otzn6m7
>
> The one on the right is almost certainly an ASR-33. The one on the left
> probably is, but I can't see the paper tape unit as that area is obscured.
The 35 was a bigger machine-- hood was higher and wider, as was the
overall machine.
The 32 was very similar to the 33 except for the keyboard. However,
in computer terminal service, it was very likely that the 33 was used
as the 32 was Baudot.
I remember in the later 1970s CDC had a video unit that was popular
as a terminal. Amtrak used them for ticketing. Faster, quiet, but
no hard copy, no paper tape.
In our early timesharing days, the computer storage memory to save
programs was very small, and not big enough for a bunch of kids.
So, at the end of a work session, we had to punch out program listing
to paper tape, then read it in at the next session. The HP-2000 had
commands just for this. But we had to allow time to print a long
program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355274 is a reply to message #354932] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 16:14 |
Rich Alderson
Messages: 489
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> A couple of years ago, I acquired a copy of Ralph Gorin's book
> _Introduction to DECSystem-20 Assembly Language Programming_, published
> by Digital Equipment Corporation Press. I got the used copy pretty cheap
> from a used bookseller. So I now have some familiarity with the
> assembly language.
Just last Thursday evening, Ralph told me that he's writing a new chapter for
that book, on executive mode programming. Of course, it's oriented towards the
Toad-2's processor rather than the KL-10, but still.
If you'd like to practice TOPS-20 assembly language programming, you can get an
account on our Toad-2 at
http://www.livingcomputers.org/Discover/Online-Systems/Reque st-a-Login.aspx
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355276 is a reply to message #354850] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 19:33 |
Clark G
Messages: 69
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:278711210.530194175.137785.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septem
ber.org:
> Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 18 Oct 2017 in alt.folklore.computers, wrote:
>>
>>> books just filled with various function tables.
>>
>> Chemical Rubber Company (CRC)'s "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics",
>> among others. I went to college with a copy. I see that math tables
>> are now in Appendix A instead of Section 1.
>>
>
> I really wanted a copy in college but it cost too much for me at the
> time. Several years agoI picked up a copy in a garage sale for $1, but
> I don't think I've used it much. I use the formulae more than the
> tables, it's too easy to use a calculator or app.
>
Shortly after starting 1st year Engineering at UBC (1979), we all
purchased the *previous year* edition of the "Rubber Bible". A lot
cheaper than the currenty one. Looked great on the book shelf, but I may
have used it half a dozen times in school and a few times after
graduation.
--
Clark G
* take away the em's to reply
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355277 is a reply to message #355274] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 19:53 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/23/2017 3:14 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>
>> A couple of years ago, I acquired a copy of Ralph Gorin's book
>> _Introduction to DECSystem-20 Assembly Language Programming_, published
>> by Digital Equipment Corporation Press. I got the used copy pretty cheap
>> from a used bookseller. So I now have some familiarity with the
>> assembly language.
>
> Just last Thursday evening, Ralph told me that he's writing a new chapter for
> that book, on executive mode programming. Of course, it's oriented towards the
> Toad-2's processor rather than the KL-10, but still.
>
> If you'd like to practice TOPS-20 assembly language programming, you can get an
> account on our Toad-2 at
>
> http://www.livingcomputers.org/Discover/Online-Systems/Reque st-a-Login.aspx
>
Thanks! I got an account back before MRC passed away. It still seems
to work... but I have to "telnet" to <toad-1.livingcomputermuseum.com>,
even though the "message of the day" says it's TOAD-2. No problem...
just sayin'.
There was also a TOPS-10 account I had on
<dec-10.livingcomputermuseum.com> ... but this address *no* longer seems
to respond. Is there another address that should be used for the Dec-10???
I can't figure out what the terminal type is for the Windows 10 cmd
(command window). VT-100 seems *not* to work and my prompts look
weird... Please tell me what I should use...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355278 is a reply to message #354946] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 20:14 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-10-23, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 10:08:16 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 6:04:41 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, doesn't windows?
>>
>> Oh, yes, 64-bit Windows runs 32-bit programs just fine. It's *16-bit*
>> Windows programs that don't run. And that's due to a limitation in how
>> Intel processors handle the 64-bit mode - they can't switch into the
>> 32-bit mode that can do all the 16-bit stuff without rebooting... sort
>> of like the same mistake they made with the 286. You'ld think they'd
>> know better by now.
>
> How would know if an old Windows program is 32 bit or 16 bit?
Try to run it on a 64-bit box.
--
/~\ 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: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355279 is a reply to message #354946] |
Mon, 23 October 2017 21:27 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 1:33:37 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 10:08:16 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> Oh, yes, 64-bit Windows runs 32-bit programs just fine. It's *16-bit* Windows
>> programs that don't run. And that's due to a limitation in how Intel processors
>> handle the 64-bit mode - they can't switch into the 32-bit mode that can do all
>> the 16-bit stuff without rebooting... sort of like the same mistake they made
>> with the 286. You'ld think they'd know better by now.
> How would know if an old Windows program is 32 bit or 16 bit?
32-bit Windows programs are the ones that need at least Windows 95 in order to
run.
16-bit Windows programs are the ones that run just fine on Windows 3.1, even without Win32s installed.
However, some Windows programs fall into the "32-bit" category as described
above, but still have pieces that are 16-bit, so that they won't run on Windows
3.1, they will run on Windows 95, but they won't run on 64-bit Windows XP and so
on either.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355280 is a reply to message #354943] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 03:12 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> It seemed that most Teletype users had the model 33, which was the cheaper
> light duty model. A few users had the model 35, which was the heavy duty
> unit. I remember our HP-2000 had a model 35 for the console unit, but
> all the terminals were model 33's.
I only ever saw 33s until the late 70s when I saw my first 43, the
last teletype I ever used.
--
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: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355281 is a reply to message #354919] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 03:53 |
usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 23 Oct 2017 09:20:22 GMT, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:22:32 +0000, Questor wrote:
>
>> On 22 Oct 2017 10:58:44 GMT, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 00:13:34 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/2017 12:14 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> > On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:38:11 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> >>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:47:14 +0000, mausg wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 2017-10-20, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On 20 Oct 2017 13:56:41 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Btw. I never used CP/M until may be two years ago. My first
>>>> >>>>>>> computer "OS"
>>>> >>>>>>> was in the Commodore 64, then the Amiga, then Windows 95. But
>>>> >>>>>>> reading about CP/M made me interested in that. So I also ran
>>>> >>>>>>> some Z80 machines, running CP/M themselves in an emulator
>>>> >>>>>>> (M.A.M.E.).
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> the command might be ED but is it a copy of the LINED
>>>> >>>>>> functionality?
>>>> >>>>>> That was the question I was answering. Sorry for my confusion.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I never came across LINED so cannot tell.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> So far I ran CP/M only on a Kaypro II and various Osbornes - all
>>>> >>>>> emulated. There was just ED. But I also got myself WordStar. ED
>>>> >>>>> is a real PITA.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I forget the name of the resident text editor on the amiga,
>>>> >>>> Cygnused rapidly took over, but there was two, at least, CP/M type
>>>> >>>> thingies, and of which had a lot of `vi' (commands, whatever) such
>>>> >>>> as pressing `5' and 'p' and repeating lines. Suddenly, the world
>>>> >>>> was a bigger place
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> What amazed me was the BBC microcomputer. At work, I installed an
>>>> >>> assembler ROM into mine so that I could modify the Kermit for it.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The ROM came with a 6502 assembler, and an editor. I was overjoyed
>>>> >>> top discover no learning curve - it was TECO.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> TECO was my first editor. On TOPS-10, type ahead was allowed so my
>>>> >> editing could fly way ahead of the printing of the last edit which
>>>> >> usually ended with -2T2T$$. Then somebody decided that TECO was
>>>> >> slowing down the system and Tape Prep was told to use SOS. What a
>>>> >> fuckinng PITA. I had to wait for the entire line to type out before
>>>> >> going on to the next line to edit, which had to type out before I
>>>> >> could edit that one. It slowed my editing time by >75%. Then the
>>>> >> guy who made the edict wanted me to do an edit. I told him it would
>>>> >> take a week if I had to use SOSX but would take a day if I could use
>>>> >> TECO. The edict faded away. Some of the gals liked SOSX so they used
>>>> >> that. I hated it so I used TECO. My usual edits never expanded
>>>> >> beyond 2K because just about everything had a page-sized form feed.
>>>> >> I never understood how the person who did the study came to the
>>>> >> conclusion that TECO was the culprit which bogged down the system.
>>>> >
>>>> > It probably did have an effect. TECO needed an interrupt after every
>>>> > character, instead of after every line.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> I thought that the later Dec-10's had a PDP-8 or PDP-11 front end that
>>>> handled the character-at-a-time interrupts... to free up the main
>>>> processor.
>>>
>>> That is true - the KA-10 I first used did.
>>>
>>> But TECO still needed to interact after every character, and all the
>>> PDP-8 did was bit-bang - the PDP-10 still needed to know about every
>>> individual character.
>>>
>>> The PDP-8 worked well for line-oriented input, handling charafter-at-a-
>>> time interrupts and generating one interrupt to the PDP-10 for each
>>> line.
>>> But TECO required character-at-a-time input.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, TECO does not *require* character mode. However, its
>> break character is escape, not newline. But in order to implement that,
>> it might have been necessary to use character-mode system calls
>> (UUO/JSYS), not line-mode calls. Dunno -- see TECO source for answer.
>> I can't remember the details of the those calls; it might have been
>> possible there was one with the capability to specify a set of break
>> characters -- see manuals for answer.
>
> If one could do a set of break characters, that would help. Even then it
> would be a slightly heavier load than line input, I guess.
>
> I believe that / (for help on an error) would have needed to be a break
> character too.
You're right; I forgot about that. Question mark as well; in that context it
displays the command string that produced the error (useful in debugging
macros). And also the issue of handling multi-line inserts:
*I
[437 lines of typing]
$$
That isn't going to be buffered by the FE...
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355283 is a reply to message #354947] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 08:47 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 10:42:11 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>>> ASR 33: the ubiquitous upper-case only medium duty Teletype
>>
>> I used those but had to purposefully slow down my typing rate
>> because anything faster than 35 WPM broke them.
>
> A Teletype 33 in timesharing service could handle 10 characters
> a second or roughly 100 words per minute.
Sure. But it couldn't handle input typing without breaking.
>
> Admittedly, the Teletype keyboard was not designed to facilitate
> speed. But once you got your tempo down it worked satisfactory.
Right. And the temp was more than half of my normal speed.
Note that I'm talking about input, not TTY output. On a PDP-10,
one did not have to wait for the output to stop before typing
more since the -10's monitor supported type-ahead.
>
> Note that some Teletypes were connected to slower networks and
> could be limited to as slow as 60 words per minute, a speed many
> typists could exceed.
I'm not talking about speed; I'm talking about the internal
mechanics of the keyboard not being able to endure hours of
high-speed typing.
>
> In my humble opinion, one of things that hurt Western Union in
> data communications was that many of their lines were limited
> to 60 WPM Baudot and paper tape.
Paper tape was OK until the VT05 became common.
/BAH
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355284 is a reply to message #354930] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 08:47 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob Eager wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:41:40 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:32:33 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> > On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:38:11 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> >>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:47:14 +0000, mausg wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 2017-10-20, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On 20 Oct 2017 13:56:41 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Btw. I never used CP/M until may be two years ago. My first
>>>> >>>>>>> computer "OS"
>>>> >>>>>>> was in the Commodore 64, then the Amiga, then Windows 95. But
>>>> >>>>>>> reading about CP/M made me interested in that. So I also ran
>>>> >>>>>>> some Z80 machines, running CP/M themselves in an emulator
>>>> >>>>>>> (M.A.M.E.).
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> the command might be ED but is it a copy of the LINED
>>>> >>>>>> functionality?
>>>> >>>>>> That was the question I was answering. Sorry for my confusion.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I never came across LINED so cannot tell.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> So far I ran CP/M only on a Kaypro II and various Osbornes - all
>>>> >>>>> emulated. There was just ED. But I also got myself WordStar. ED
>>>> >>>>> is a real PITA.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I forget the name of the resident text editor on the amiga,
>>>> >>>> Cygnused rapidly took over, but there was two, at least, CP/M type
>>>> >>>> thingies, and of which had a lot of `vi' (commands, whatever) such
>>>> >>>> as pressing `5' and 'p' and repeating lines. Suddenly, the world
>>>> >>>> was a bigger place
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> What amazed me was the BBC microcomputer. At work, I installed an
>>>> >>> assembler ROM into mine so that I could modify the Kermit for it.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The ROM came with a 6502 assembler, and an editor. I was overjoyed
>>>> >>> top discover no learning curve - it was TECO.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> TECO was my first editor. On TOPS-10, type ahead was allowed so my
>>>> >> editing could fly way ahead of the printing of the last edit which
>>>> >> usually ended with -2T2T$$. Then somebody decided that TECO was
>>>> >> slowing down the system and Tape Prep was told to use SOS. What a
>>>> >> fuckinng PITA. I had to wait for the entire line to type out before
>>>> >> going on to the next line to edit, which had to type out before I
>>>> >> could edit that one. It slowed my editing time by >75%. Then the
>>>> >> guy who made the edict wanted me to do an edit. I told him it would
>>>> >> take a week if I had to use SOSX but would take a day if I could use
>>>> >> TECO. The edict faded away. Some of the gals liked SOSX so they used
>>>> >> that. I hated it so I used TECO. My usual edits never expanded
>>>> >> beyond 2K because just about everything had a page-sized form feed.
>>>> >> I never understood how the person who did the study came to the
>>>> >> conclusion that TECO was the culprit which bogged down the system.
>>>> >
>>>> > It probably did have an effect. TECO needed an interrupt after every
>>>> > character, instead of after every line.
>>>>
>>>> That's not how TOPS-10 worked.
>>>
>>> Please explain further. If TECO were to respond after each character
>>> (as it had to, to work), how did it do that?
>>
>> TECO didn't have to; the monitor did in order to echo the character as
>> soon as it was typed.
>
> Splitting hairs. It still required an interrupt after each character. In
> line mode, the PDP-9 could do that.
So did SOS; there wasn't any buffer in the TTYs.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355285 is a reply to message #355275] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 08:47 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 8:42:11 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Quadibloc wrote:
>
>>> The ASR 33 was originally designed as light-duty, but got upgraded to
>> medium-
>>> duty with experience in its use. The ASR 38 had no such luck, and is no
>> doubt
>>> the one you are remembering.
>
>> Perhaps. The number 7 is what pops into my head....never 38.
>
> Well, the Model 37 has a Wikipedia article with a picture:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_37
>
> and this page shows pictures of the Model 38:
>
> http://www.baudot.net/teletype/M38.htm
>
> so you can look at them both, and see which one corresponds to what you
> remember.
I was told it was a 37. A picture won't help because I only used
the terminal once. I found it almost impossible to do an edit
with speed I was used to. Most of the time the innards of the terminal
was laying around the machine so a put-together picture wouldn't match
my memory :-)
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355286 is a reply to message #355277] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 08:47 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 3:14 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>>
>>> A couple of years ago, I acquired a copy of Ralph Gorin's book
>>> _Introduction to DECSystem-20 Assembly Language Programming_, published
>>> by Digital Equipment Corporation Press. I got the used copy pretty cheap
>>> from a used bookseller. So I now have some familiarity with the
>>> assembly language.
>>
>> Just last Thursday evening, Ralph told me that he's writing a new chapter
for
>> that book, on executive mode programming. Of course, it's oriented towards
the
>> Toad-2's processor rather than the KL-10, but still.
>>
>> If you'd like to practice TOPS-20 assembly language programming, you can
get an
>> account on our Toad-2 at
>>
>>
http://www.livingcomputers.org/Discover/Online-Systems/Reque st-a-Login.aspx
>>
>
> Thanks! I got an account back before MRC passed away. It still seems
> to work... but I have to "telnet" to <toad-1.livingcomputermuseum.com>,
> even though the "message of the day" says it's TOAD-2. No problem...
> just sayin'.
>
> There was also a TOPS-10 account I had on
> <dec-10.livingcomputermuseum.com> ... but this address *no* longer seems
> to respond. Is there another address that should be used for the Dec-10???
>
> I can't figure out what the terminal type is for the Windows 10 cmd
> (command window). VT-100 seems *not* to work and my prompts look
> weird... Please tell me what I should use...
Try SET TTY TTY if it's really the command window....or a set tty vt05
if you...well, no, that won't work because of the screen addressing
differences. Note that I've given you the TOPS-10 commands; a
judicious use of ? help will give you the -20's.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355287 is a reply to message #355284] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 10:17 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 12:47:17 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:41:40 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:32:33 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:38:11 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> >>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:47:14 +0000, mausg wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> On 2017-10-20, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> On 20 Oct 2017 13:56:41 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Btw. I never used CP/M until may be two years ago. My first
>>>> >>>>>>>> computer "OS"
>>>> >>>>>>>> was in the Commodore 64, then the Amiga, then Windows 95. But
>>>> >>>>>>>> reading about CP/M made me interested in that. So I also ran
>>>> >>>>>>>> some Z80 machines, running CP/M themselves in an emulator
>>>> >>>>>>>> (M.A.M.E.).
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> the command might be ED but is it a copy of the LINED
>>>> >>>>>>> functionality?
>>>> >>>>>>> That was the question I was answering. Sorry for my
>>>> >>>>>>> confusion.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> I never came across LINED so cannot tell.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> So far I ran CP/M only on a Kaypro II and various Osbornes -
>>>> >>>>>> all emulated. There was just ED. But I also got myself
>>>> >>>>>> WordStar. ED is a real PITA.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I forget the name of the resident text editor on the amiga,
>>>> >>>>> Cygnused rapidly took over, but there was two, at least, CP/M
>>>> >>>>> type thingies, and of which had a lot of `vi' (commands,
>>>> >>>>> whatever) such as pressing `5' and 'p' and repeating lines.
>>>> >>>>> Suddenly, the world was a bigger place
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> What amazed me was the BBC microcomputer. At work, I installed an
>>>> >>>> assembler ROM into mine so that I could modify the Kermit for it.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> The ROM came with a 6502 assembler, and an editor. I was
>>>> >>>> overjoyed top discover no learning curve - it was TECO.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> TECO was my first editor. On TOPS-10, type ahead was allowed so
>>>> >>> my editing could fly way ahead of the printing of the last edit
>>>> >>> which usually ended with -2T2T$$. Then somebody decided that
>>>> >>> TECO was slowing down the system and Tape Prep was told to use
>>>> >>> SOS. What a fuckinng PITA. I had to wait for the entire line to
>>>> >>> type out before going on to the next line to edit, which had to
>>>> >>> type out before I could edit that one. It slowed my editing time
>>>> >>> by >75%. Then the guy who made the edict wanted me to do an edit.
>>>> >>> I told him it would take a week if I had to use SOSX but would
>>>> >>> take a day if I could use TECO. The edict faded away. Some of the
>>>> >>> gals liked SOSX so they used that. I hated it so I used TECO. My
>>>> >>> usual edits never expanded beyond 2K because just about everything
>>>> >>> had a page-sized form feed. I never understood how the person who
>>>> >>> did the study came to the conclusion that TECO was the culprit
>>>> >>> which bogged down the system.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It probably did have an effect. TECO needed an interrupt after
>>>> >> every character, instead of after every line.
>>>> >
>>>> > That's not how TOPS-10 worked.
>>>>
>>>> Please explain further. If TECO were to respond after each character
>>>> (as it had to, to work), how did it do that?
>>>
>>> TECO didn't have to; the monitor did in order to echo the character as
>>> soon as it was typed.
>>
>> Splitting hairs. It still required an interrupt after each character.
>> In line mode, the PDP-9 could do that.
>
> So did SOS; there wasn't any buffer in the TTYs.
There's still a difference. One UUO per character as opposed to one per
line.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355288 is a reply to message #355278] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 12:35 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-10-23, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 10:08:16 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 6:04:41 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, doesn't windows?
>>>
>>> Oh, yes, 64-bit Windows runs 32-bit programs just fine. It's *16-bit*
>>> Windows programs that don't run. And that's due to a limitation in how
>>> Intel processors handle the 64-bit mode - they can't switch into the
>>> 32-bit mode that can do all the 16-bit stuff without rebooting... sort
>>> of like the same mistake they made with the 286. You'ld think they'd
>>> know better by now.
>>
>> How would know if an old Windows program is 32 bit or 16 bit?
>
> Try to run it on a 64-bit box.
>
It's in the .exe header. presumably the's a 'doze equivalent of readelf.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
