| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355289 is a reply to message #355279] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 12:35   |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> 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
>
Presumably you can run the 16- and 32- bit .exe's under OS/2.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355290 is a reply to message #355288] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 13:16 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> 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.
>
Windows uses the predecessor to ELF (Extensible Linking Format) called
COFF (Common Object File Format). Microsoft's variation of COFF is called
PE/COFF.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355291 is a reply to message #355283] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 14:02 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> 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.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#11 The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac
late 60s, switching back and forth between tty33 and 2741 ... besides
other things, tty33 took more finger strength. some people that could
touch type on 2741 would be two finger typing on 33 because they had to
use hand force to depress the keys.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355292 is a reply to message #355286] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 14:15 |
pechter
Messages: 452
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <PM00055C4A9002DA66@aca41ecf.ipt.aol.com>,
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> 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
The fix is to use a good VT100 emulating terminal program. Xterm or
Kermit work. Some of the Linux terminals barely work with vi and fail
on true DEC software.
Unfortunately, Kermit-95 for Windows is no longer current on ssh
encryption unless you enable the less-secure old cipher code on your
server.
To use with VMS/RT/RSX/RSTS etSc...
http://www.kermitproject.org/current.html
For PC to Unix I Use:
Putty
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/latest.ht ml
Tera-Term
https://ttssh2.osdn.jp/index.html.en
This looks promising.
http://www.ivtssh.nl/
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355294 is a reply to message #355293] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 17:23 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2017 08:50:35 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The more I find out about Windows, the gladder I become that I know
>> nothing about it.
>
> Strongly agree.
>
Me too, but unfortunately there have been a lot of requests by PL/I users
for a windows version ( I guess I should try to spell it correctly, but
I'll be darned if I'll capitalize it or tag it with (tm) ) Accordingly I'm
trying to pick up some minimal windows API stuff and figure out how to link
with MinGW.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355295 is a reply to message #355291] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 17:32 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/24/2017 1:02 PM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>> 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.
>
> re:
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#11 The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac
>
> late 60s, switching back and forth between tty33 and 2741 ... besides
> other things, tty33 took more finger strength. some people that could
> touch type on 2741 would be two finger typing on 33 because they had to
> use hand force to depress the keys.
>
Maybe DEC took the term "glass teletype" too literally... and that's why
the VT100 keyboard was *so* hard to type on!!! ;-) You had to push
each key straight down on the VT100 for a decent travel length...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355297 is a reply to message #355280] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 19:55 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 3:30:07 AM UTC-4, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
>
>> 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.
Teletype came out with some later models after the 33, but I don't
think they were anywhere near as popular. By that point, there
was competition in the terminal market.
Teletype did offer a CRT unit, and the Bell System made use of them
in quantity, but I'm not sure how popular they were in industry.
It seemed that the 3270 was everywhere. But in the mid 1980s,
my employer was buying all generic 3270-type terminals. IIRC, a
3270 ran about $1,000 while a generic was about $850 at that time.
Also, the cost of controllers dropped significantly, which allowed
my employer to greatly expand the number of terminals. For instance,
in 1980 we had to use shared terminals in "terminal alley", which I
think most companies did. By 1990, everyone had their own terminal
(or a PC with an IRMA emulator card).
Some companies had to run their coax cables across the ceiling,
suspended by paperclips (we did this, and I saw this at several
other sites). But by later years, newer cubicles were built with
raceways and wiring to allow hidden wiring.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355298 is a reply to message #355291] |
Tue, 24 October 2017 20:01 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 2:02:57 PM UTC-4, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> late 60s, switching back and forth between tty33 and 2741 ... besides
> other things, tty33 took more finger strength. some people that could
> touch type on 2741 would be two finger typing on 33 because they had to
> use hand force to depress the keys.
Our typing class used manual typewriters, and the family typewriter
was an older manual. So, I was used to more pressure and was fine
on the Teletype 33.
In later years, when I had use of electric typewriters and modern
terminals, I had to adjust to less pressure.
I picked up a Selectric at a yard sale. It wasn't in good shape
and the keyboard needed more pressure than a Selectric in good
working order. (I haven't used it in a long time, and when I tried
it, it was kind of frozen up. I think the cost of servicing it,
assuming I could even find a competent service center, would be
high and not worth it.)
Now, if I try to use a regular typewriter (manual or electric),
I find I'm out of practice.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355301 is a reply to message #355297] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 07:16 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 3:30:07 AM UTC-4, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Teletype came out with some later models after the 33, but I don't
> think they were anywhere near as popular. By that point, there
> was competition in the terminal market.
>
> Teletype did offer a CRT unit, and the Bell System made use of them
> in quantity, but I'm not sure how popular they were in industry.
> It seemed that the 3270 was everywhere. But in the mid 1980s,
> my employer was buying all generic 3270-type terminals. IIRC, a
> 3270 ran about $1,000 while a generic was about $850 at that time.
The Teletype unit was 3270-compatible. At PPOE we tested them, and wound
up helping to debug some of the BIsync problems it had. I think they
overnighted us a ROM a day for a few days until they got it right.
>
> Also, the cost of controllers dropped significantly, which allowed
> my employer to greatly expand the number of terminals. For instance,
> in 1980 we had to use shared terminals in "terminal alley", which I
> think most companies did. By 1990, everyone had their own terminal
> (or a PC with an IRMA emulator card).
>
> Some companies had to run their coax cables across the ceiling,
> suspended by paperclips (we did this, and I saw this at several
> other sites). But by later years, newer cubicles were built with
> raceways and wiring to allow hidden wiring.
>
>
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355304 is a reply to message #355298] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 08:49 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/24/2017 7:01 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 2:02:57 PM UTC-4, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
>> late 60s, switching back and forth between tty33 and 2741 ... besides
>> other things, tty33 took more finger strength. some people that could
>> touch type on 2741 would be two finger typing on 33 because they had to
>> use hand force to depress the keys.
>
> Our typing class used manual typewriters, and the family typewriter
> was an older manual. So, I was used to more pressure and was fine
> on the Teletype 33.
>
ISTM with a manual typewriter, your finger should *not* follow the key
all the way to the bottom of the key travel. You "poke" the key and the
momentum will carry the key down. This is *not* true with a teletype.
So it's different...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355305 is a reply to message #354475] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 09:23 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2017 09:50:48 GMT
mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2017-10-24, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Windows uses the predecessor to ELF (Extensible Linking Format) called
>> COFF (Common Object File Format). Microsoft's variation of COFF is
>> called PE/COFF.
>
> Reading that quickly, it seems to encapsule M$ attitude to customers.
Eh ? That's a P at the start not an F.
--
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 #355307 is a reply to message #354707] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 12:06 |
Alan Bowler
Messages: 185
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-10-18 5:11 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 3:11:25 AM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> In junior high I had a math teacher who showed me how to calculate
>> square roots using a process similar to long division. I filled a
>> whiteboard in a spare room with a calculation of the square root of
>> 10 to at least a dozen decimal places.
>> Well, if you're going to be a nerd, you might as well play it up...
>
> We learned that, and it was on the test. IIRC, it was a PITA.
> However, once we learned it, I don't think we ever used it the hand
> method again. We either used our slide rule or a table in a book.
> (Our math and science textbooks had various function tables in
> the back. The teachers had collections of books just filled with
> various function tables. We also learned "interpolation" and did
> use that frequently for table lookups.)
I did learn the "formal method" of hand calculating a square
root, and while I mastered it, it was a pain. A few years later
the head of the math department told me that the principal of the
school preferred the "guess divide and average" (repeat until
sufficient convergence. It is of course just the special
case of Newton-Raphson and so has quadratic convergence.
If all I have is pencil and paper (or blackboard), I certainly
find it easier. Also it has the advantage of being self-correcting
for minor mistakes in the arithmetic.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355308 is a reply to message #355307] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 12:42 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/25/2017 11:06 AM, Alan Bowler wrote:
> On 2017-10-18 5:11 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 3:11:25 AM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> In junior high I had a math teacher who showed me how to calculate
>>> square roots using a process similar to long division. I filled a
>>> whiteboard in a spare room with a calculation of the square root of
>>> 10 to at least a dozen decimal places.
>>> Well, if you're going to be a nerd, you might as well play it up...
>>
>> We learned that, and it was on the test. IIRC, it was a PITA.
>> However, once we learned it, I don't think we ever used it the hand
>> method again. We either used our slide rule or a table in a book.
>> (Our math and science textbooks had various function tables in
>> the back. The teachers had collections of books just filled with
>> various function tables. We also learned "interpolation" and did
>> use that frequently for table lookups.)
>
> I did learn the "formal method" of hand calculating a square
> root, and while I mastered it, it was a pain. A few years later
> the head of the math department told me that the principal of the
> school preferred the "guess divide and average" (repeat until
> sufficient convergence. It is of course just the special
> case of Newton-Raphson and so has quadratic convergence.
> If all I have is pencil and paper (or blackboard), I certainly
> find it easier. Also it has the advantage of being self-correcting
> for minor mistakes in the arithmetic.
>
If you have a four-banger calculator with a memory that supports clear,
store, and recall (not recall twice to clear the memory), you can do the
"guess then divide and repeat" square root method using the calculator
without having to re-enter intermediate results. You can expect about 2
digits of the right answer with each iteration... so it does *not* take
long.
Of course, if your calculator has a square root key (like many simple
calculators do today)... then you needn't bother...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355309 is a reply to message #355297] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 18:22 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Teletype did offer a CRT unit, and the Bell System made use of them
> in quantity, but I'm not sure how popular they were in industry.
> It seemed that the 3270 was everywhere. But in the mid 1980s,
> my employer was buying all generic 3270-type terminals. IIRC, a
> 3270 ran about $1,000 while a generic was about $850 at that time.
>
> Also, the cost of controllers dropped significantly, which allowed
> my employer to greatly expand the number of terminals. For instance,
> in 1980 we had to use shared terminals in "terminal alley", which I
> think most companies did. By 1990, everyone had their own terminal
> (or a PC with an IRMA emulator card).
>
> Some companies had to run their coax cables across the ceiling,
> suspended by paperclips (we did this, and I saw this at several
> other sites). But by later years, newer cubicles were built with
> raceways and wiring to allow hidden wiring.
Los Gatos VLSI did a lot of VLSI design tools ... using Metaware's TWS
for some. Also two of the guys used TWS to do mainframe Pascal that was
used to implement some number of tools. 1980, one of the guys left
.... and along with some number of other people did a startup to do 3274
clone controller. They were going to differentiate themselfs by adding
features to do some amount of human factors support ... like
editing/input ... trying to get level of MVS interaction up comparable
to what users saw with vm370/cms (vm370/cms was dominate system used all
over internal IBM in silicon valley ... including purely MVS development
projects).
However, before it shipped, IBM announced IBM/PC ... and users could
start doing similar things using IBM/PC ... and then using terminal
emulation to interact with mainframe ... and I'm not absolutely positive
but they may never did ship any boxes.
trivia ... the former LSG VLSI guy then became VP of software
development at MIPS ... and then when SGI bought MIPS, he went to SUN
and ran the business group that included JAVA.
Intro/base IBM/PC with terminal emulation was only slightly more than
3270. Large companies that already justified hundred/thousands of 3270
.... could switch orders to IBM/PC with little additional justification
..... and get single desktop footprint that did mainframe 3270 along with
some local computing.
A major motivation for introduction of token-ring ... was to replace
3270 coax for IBM/PC terminal emulations. mid-80s some large 3270 shops
were starting to exceed bldg. floor loading limits with all the 3270
coax cable. Could run single token-ring CAT5 ... to departmental MAU
.... which then had token-ring CAT5 to individual stations (CAT5 cable
was lighter than coax .... and also eliminated needing a cable from the
machine room to each individual terminal ... just use single CAT5 to
local wiring closet with individual station CAT5 from there).
I also remember some comment that it frequently cost $1000 or more to
run new coax from machine room to a new 3270 terminal (aka actual 3270
terminal price was increasing becoming smaller part of the total cost).
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355312 is a reply to message #355290] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 05:50 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-10-24, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2017-10-23, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 10:08:16 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 6:04:41 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, doesn't windows?
>>>> >
>>>> > Oh, yes, 64-bit Windows runs 32-bit programs just fine. It's *16-bit*
>>>> > Windows programs that don't run. And that's due to a limitation in how
>>>> > Intel processors handle the 64-bit mode - they can't switch into the
>>>> > 32-bit mode that can do all the 16-bit stuff without rebooting... sort
>>>> > of like the same mistake they made with the 286. You'ld think they'd
>>>> > know better by now.
>>>>
>>>> How would know if an old Windows program is 32 bit or 16 bit?
>>>
>>> Try to run it on a 64-bit box.
>>>
>>
>> It's in the .exe header. presumably the's a 'doze equivalent of readelf.
>>
>
> Windows uses the predecessor to ELF (Extensible Linking Format) called
> COFF (Common Object File Format). Microsoft's variation of COFF is called
> PE/COFF.
Reading that quickly, it seems to encapsule M$ attitude to customers.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355321 is a reply to message #355287] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 09:01 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob Eager wrote:
> 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.
Not really when talking about echoing. Echoing is different from
input to a monitor buffer.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355322 is a reply to message #355295] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 09:01 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 10/24/2017 1:02 PM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>> 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.
>>
>> re:
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#11 The Windows 95 chime was created
on a Mac
>>
>> late 60s, switching back and forth between tty33 and 2741 ... besides
>> other things, tty33 took more finger strength. some people that could
>> touch type on 2741 would be two finger typing on 33 because they had to
>> use hand force to depress the keys.
>>
>
> Maybe DEC took the term "glass teletype" too literally... and that's why
> the VT100 keyboard was *so* hard to type on!!! ;-) You had to push
> each key straight down on the VT100 for a decent travel length...
>
I don't remember that.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355323 is a reply to message #355291] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 09:01 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>> 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.
>
> re:
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#11 The Windows 95 chime was created
on a Mac
>
> late 60s, switching back and forth between tty33 and 2741 ... besides
> other things, tty33 took more finger strength. some people that could
> touch type on 2741 would be two finger typing on 33 because they had to
> use hand force to depress the keys.
the 36 had to have a lot of finger force, too. I still type that way
and, probably, could increase my speed if I had a lighter touch.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355325 is a reply to message #355305] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 10:14 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-10-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2017 09:50:48 GMT
> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-24, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>
>>> Windows uses the predecessor to ELF (Extensible Linking Format) called
>>> COFF (Common Object File Format). Microsoft's variation of COFF is
>>> called PE/COFF.
>>
>> Reading that quickly, it seems to encapsule M$ attitude to customers.
>
> Eh ? That's a P at the start not an F.
But replacing the C with an S is at least as appropriate.
--
/~\ 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 #355330 is a reply to message #355305] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 12:14 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-10-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2017 09:50:48 GMT
> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-24, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Windows uses the predecessor to ELF (Extensible Linking Format) called
>>> COFF (Common Object File Format). Microsoft's variation of COFF is
>>> called PE/COFF.
>>
>> Reading that quickly, it seems to encapsule M$ attitude to customers.
>
> Eh ? That's a P at the start not an F.
>
I should have added a smiley?
Re shoes; When I was young, early 50's , the first adult footwear was
hob-nailed boots, as people walked almost everywhere. Working in a
place where electricity was amateur installed, stopped that. I am
told that they are still supplied in Hilliards in Killarney, if the
shop is still in existance, a friend went down to get a pair for his
Father, who was dying. Cars finished all those sorts of footwear.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355331 is a reply to message #355304] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 13:10 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:49:02 -0500, Charles Richmond
<numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/2017 7:01 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 2:02:57 PM UTC-4, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>
>>> late 60s, switching back and forth between tty33 and 2741 ... besides
>>> other things, tty33 took more finger strength. some people that could
>>> touch type on 2741 would be two finger typing on 33 because they had to
>>> use hand force to depress the keys.
>>
>> Our typing class used manual typewriters, and the family typewriter
>> was an older manual. So, I was used to more pressure and was fine
>> on the Teletype 33.
>>
>
> ISTM with a manual typewriter, your finger should *not* follow the key
> all the way to the bottom of the key travel. You "poke" the key and the
> momentum will carry the key down. This is *not* true with a teletype.
> So it's different...
Not with the Remington Quiet Deluxe. manual typewriter. I had to force
those keys down. Went through a number of plastic computer keyboards
years later. I was told several times it sounded like I was drilling
into the table.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355346 is a reply to message #355277] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 17:14 |
Rich Alderson
Messages: 489
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> On 10/23/2017 3:14 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
>> 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'.
Sure. When we moved from the Toad-1, with spinning rust, to a Toad-2, with
network-served spinning rust from a RAID box, we kept the CNAME the same for
the public system because we had several hundred accounts.
> 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???
Oh, yes. That was covered in a notice on the System Status page (too cleverly
hidden by our web designers, but that's changing again). Because the thousands
of scriptkiddy 'bots were killing the terminal server front end to the serial
ports, we moved it inside a firewall. To get to the Dec-10 (our 2065), use SSH
to
dec-10@tty.livingcomputers.org
> 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...
Our recommendaton for the last decade has been PuTTY, which does very good
VT100 emulation:
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/latest.html
--
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 #355348 is a reply to message #355294] |
Wed, 25 October 2017 17:26 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:23:22 -0400, Peter Flass wrote:
>
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On 24 Oct 2017 08:50:35 GMT
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> The more I find out about Windows, the gladder I become that I know
>>> nothing about it.
>>
>> Strongly agree.
>>
>
> Me too, but unfortunately there have been a lot of requests by PL/I users
> for a windows version ( I guess I should try to spell it correctly, but
> I'll be darned if I'll capitalize it or tag it with (tm) ) Accordingly I'm
> trying to pick up some minimal windows API stuff and figure out how to link
> with MinGW.
PL/I? Try PL/M and wait a little until CP/M comes out. There you might be
able to run GEM on as GUI. ;-)
/me's so stuck in the 70s today...
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you hang pickled eggs and pop-tops from your christmas tree.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355353 is a reply to message #355323] |
Thu, 26 October 2017 12:47 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/25/2017 8:01 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>> 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.
>>
>> re:
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#11 The Windows 95 chime was created
> on a Mac
>>
>> late 60s, switching back and forth between tty33 and 2741 ... besides
>> other things, tty33 took more finger strength. some people that could
>> touch type on 2741 would be two finger typing on 33 because they had to
>> use hand force to depress the keys.
>
> the 36 had to have a lot of finger force, too. I still type that way
> and, probably, could increase my speed if I had a lighter touch.
>
What?!! The DECWriter keyboard is my absolute favorite!!! The spring
tensions on the DECWriter were just right... my sec ond choice would be
the IBM Selectric, but the Selectric springs on the keyboard were a bit
tight and more difficult to press than the DECWriter keyboard. the
Selectric keys were *not* really hard to press, but that keyboard would
give the muscles which worked your fingers... a really good workout!!!
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #355362 is a reply to message #355348] |
Thu, 26 October 2017 17:28 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 25/10/2017 22:26, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:23:22 -0400, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On 24 Oct 2017 08:50:35 GMT
>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The more I find out about Windows, the gladder I become that I know
>>>> nothing about it.
>>>
>>> Strongly agree.
>>>
>>
>> Me too, but unfortunately there have been a lot of requests by PL/I users
>> for a windows version ( I guess I should try to spell it correctly, but
>> I'll be darned if I'll capitalize it or tag it with (tm) ) Accordingly I'm
>> trying to pick up some minimal windows API stuff and figure out how to link
>> with MinGW.
>
> PL/I? Try PL/M and wait a little until CP/M comes out. There you might be
> able to run GEM on as GUI. ;-)
>
> /me's so stuck in the 70s today...
>
Assume Microsoft will change its interface to user software. I suggest
that you send all calls through your own library so only the library
needs changing. Users just recompile and relink.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356590 is a reply to message #354911] |
Mon, 13 November 2017 13:48 |
Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 2017-10-23, Peter Flass wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
....
>> 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, [...]
Although, running with such a mismatch indicates you're either running
badly broken software (which, for some reason, after decades of 64-bit
Unix still isn't portable to a modern system) or you're running
non-free software produced by a really backwards company and you're a
sucker.
(Yet, I ran such a setup myself for a while. I foolishly wanted to
run Adobe Flash.)
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356593 is a reply to message #356590] |
Mon, 13 November 2017 14:28 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
> On Mon, 2017-10-23, Peter Flass wrote:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> 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, [...]
>
> Although, running with such a mismatch indicates you're either running
> badly broken software (which, for some reason, after decades of 64-bit
> Unix still isn't portable to a modern system) or you're running
> non-free software produced by a really backwards company and you're a
> sucker.
Or you care about icache/dcache footprint. If an application doesn't
require a large memory footprint, what's wrong with compiling it
for 32-bit on an intel 64-bit host?
It's actually quite wise to compile applications that don't need
large memory footprint (or large integer support) as 32-bit - between
pointers twice as large as necessary and all the necessary instruction
prefixes required for 64-bit code, one can experience much better
memory subsystem performance (specifically cache) with 32-bit applications.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356595 is a reply to message #356593] |
Mon, 13 November 2017 15:22 |
cmadams
Messages: 29
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Once upon a time, Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> said:
> It's actually quite wise to compile applications that don't need
> large memory footprint (or large integer support) as 32-bit - between
> pointers twice as large as necessary and all the necessary instruction
> prefixes required for 64-bit code, one can experience much better
> memory subsystem performance (specifically cache) with 32-bit applications.
In the specific case of i686 to x86_64, there is significant gain in
register availability by compiling for x86_64. i686 is pretty register
poor, so code has to hit memory more often than on many other CPU
architectures. x86_64 expanded the register set, so code can avoid more
memory accesses, speeding up execution (and reducing needed memory
bandwidth).
--
Chris Adams <cmadams@cmadams.net>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356596 is a reply to message #356593] |
Mon, 13 November 2017 17:18 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:28:08 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>> On Mon, 2017-10-23, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, [...]
>>
>> Although, running with such a mismatch indicates you're either running
>> badly broken software (which, for some reason, after decades of 64-bit
>> Unix still isn't portable to a modern system) or you're running
>> non-free software produced by a really backwards company and you're a
>> sucker.
>
> Or you care about icache/dcache footprint. If an application doesn't
> require a large memory footprint, what's wrong with compiling it
> for 32-bit on an intel 64-bit host?
I think he was talking about running 32Bit programs on a 64Bit Linux OS.
I have a 64Bit CPU but run 32Bit Linux just fine.
The problem with 32Bit (any OS) will show in about 21 years (Y2K38
bug). If course by then it's not too likely anyone still runs 32Bit
software. Like today almost no one runs 16Bit or even 8Bit on productive
systems.
Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here) we
might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you know of at least six different ways to bend the bill of a baseball hat.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356598 is a reply to message #356596] |
Mon, 13 November 2017 18:01 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:18:32 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:28:08 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>>> On Mon, 2017-10-23, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, [...]
>>>
>>> Although, running with such a mismatch indicates you're either running
>>> badly broken software (which, for some reason, after decades of 64-bit
>>> Unix still isn't portable to a modern system) or you're running
>>> non-free software produced by a really backwards company and you're a
>>> sucker.
>>
>> Or you care about icache/dcache footprint. If an application doesn't
>> require a large memory footprint, what's wrong with compiling it for
>> 32-bit on an intel 64-bit host?
>
> I think he was talking about running 32Bit programs on a 64Bit Linux OS.
>
> I have a 64Bit CPU but run 32Bit Linux just fine.
>
> The problem with 32Bit (any OS) will show in about 21 years (Y2K38 bug).
> If course by then it's not too likely anyone still runs 32Bit software.
> Like today almost no one runs 16Bit or even 8Bit on productive systems.
>
> Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here) we
> might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
I run some 12 bit hardware....!
--
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 #356599 is a reply to message #354475] |
Mon, 13 November 2017 19:03 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:17:41 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2017 23:01:46 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:18:32 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with 32Bit (any OS) will show in about 21 years (Y2K38
>>> bug).
>>> If course by then it's not too likely anyone still runs 32Bit
>>> software. Like today almost no one runs 16Bit or even 8Bit on
>>> productive systems.
>>>
>>> Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here)
>>> we might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
>>
>> I run some 12 bit hardware....!
>
> Please elaborate.
PDP-8 (well, SBC-6120)
--
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 #356600 is a reply to message #356596] |
Mon, 13 November 2017 21:46 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-11-13, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> The problem with 32Bit (any OS) will show in about 21 years (Y2K38
> bug). If course by then it's not too likely anyone still runs 32Bit
> software. Like today almost no one runs 16Bit or even 8Bit on productive
> systems.
>
> Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here) we
> might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
I still build MS-DOS and Win16 versions of my stuff, although it's
mostly because it'd be more trouble to remove the routines from my
system. As for the 2038 problem, it's conceivable that you could
define time_t as 64-bit even on 32-bit systems...
--
/~\ 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 #356601 is a reply to message #356600] |
Mon, 13 November 2017 22:12 |
osmium
Messages: 749
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11/13/2017 8:46 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2017-11-13, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> The problem with 32Bit (any OS) will show in about 21 years (Y2K38
>> bug). If course by then it's not too likely anyone still runs 32Bit
>> software. Like today almost no one runs 16Bit or even 8Bit on productive
>> systems.
>>
>> Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here) we
>> might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
> I still build MS-DOS and Win16 versions of my stuff, although it's
> mostly because it'd be more trouble to remove the routines from my
> system. As for the 2038 problem, it's conceivable that you could
> define time_t as 64-bit even on 32-bit systems...
The notion that hardware design should be related in any way whatsoever
to the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun makes me sick
to my stomach.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356602 is a reply to message #356601] |
Tue, 14 November 2017 00:15 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-11-14, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/13/2017 8:46 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2017-11-13, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with 32Bit (any OS) will show in about 21 years (Y2K38
>>> bug). If course by then it's not too likely anyone still runs 32Bit
>>> software. Like today almost no one runs 16Bit or even 8Bit on productive
>>> systems.
>>>
>>> Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here) we
>>> might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
>>
>> I still build MS-DOS and Win16 versions of my stuff, although it's
>> mostly because it'd be more trouble to remove the routines from my
>> system. As for the 2038 problem, it's conceivable that you could
>> define time_t as 64-bit even on 32-bit systems...
>
> The notion that hardware design should be related in any way whatsoever
> to the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun makes me sick
> to my stomach.
It has nothing to do with the time it takes the earth to revolve around
the sun - just how many times it revolves before things go sideways.
--
/~\ 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 #356606 is a reply to message #356596] |
Tue, 14 November 2017 09:06 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:28:08 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>>> On Mon, 2017-10-23, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, [...]
>>>
>>> Although, running with such a mismatch indicates you're either running
>>> badly broken software (which, for some reason, after decades of 64-bit
>>> Unix still isn't portable to a modern system) or you're running
>>> non-free software produced by a really backwards company and you're a
>>> sucker.
>>
>> Or you care about icache/dcache footprint. If an application doesn't
>> require a large memory footprint, what's wrong with compiling it
>> for 32-bit on an intel 64-bit host?
>
> I think he was talking about running 32Bit programs on a 64Bit Linux OS.
As was I. It's trivial to compile an app with -m32 on most
64-bit linux distributions (Fedora, Ubuntu, RHEL & derivitives).
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356707 is a reply to message #356596] |
Tue, 14 November 2017 09:08 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:28:08 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>>> On Mon, 2017-10-23, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>>> 64-bit Linux runs 32-bit programs just fine, [...]
>>>
>>> Although, running with such a mismatch indicates you're either running
>>> badly broken software (which, for some reason, after decades of 64-bit
>>> Unix still isn't portable to a modern system) or you're running
>>> non-free software produced by a really backwards company and you're a
>>> sucker.
>>
>> Or you care about icache/dcache footprint. If an application doesn't
>> require a large memory footprint, what's wrong with compiling it
>> for 32-bit on an intel 64-bit host?
>
> I think he was talking about running 32Bit programs on a 64Bit Linux OS.
>
> I have a 64Bit CPU but run 32Bit Linux just fine.
>
> The problem with 32Bit (any OS) will show in about 21 years (Y2K38
> bug). If course by then it's not too likely anyone still runs 32Bit
> software. Like today almost no one runs 16Bit or even 8Bit on productive
> systems.
Infamous last words :-)
>
> Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here) we
> might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
What about old computers used by the military? Atomic bombs must have
old gear.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356708 is a reply to message #356602] |
Tue, 14 November 2017 09:08 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2017-11-14, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/13/2017 8:46 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-11-13, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem with 32Bit (any OS) will show in about 21 years (Y2K38
>>>> bug). If course by then it's not too likely anyone still runs 32Bit
>>>> software. Like today almost no one runs 16Bit or even 8Bit on productive
>>>> systems.
>>>>
>>>> Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here) we
>>>> might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
>>>
>>> I still build MS-DOS and Win16 versions of my stuff, although it's
>>> mostly because it'd be more trouble to remove the routines from my
>>> system. As for the 2038 problem, it's conceivable that you could
>>> define time_t as 64-bit even on 32-bit systems...
>>
>> The notion that hardware design should be related in any way whatsoever
>> to the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun makes me sick
>> to my stomach.
>
> It has nothing to do with the time it takes the earth to revolve around
> the sun - just how many times it revolves before things go sideways.
>
There has to be an agreed zero'th day; otherwise the world would consist
of a Time Tower of Babel. When I think of the problems I had w.r.t.
just wall clock time, I'm very glad I didn't have to deal with all
possible calendar day counting.
Just think about what kinds of money banks could rake in if they
could each have their own calendars.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356709 is a reply to message #356590] |
Tue, 14 November 2017 09:32 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-10-23, Peter Flass wrote:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> 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, [...]
>
> Although, running with such a mismatch indicates you're either running
> badly broken software (which, for some reason, after decades of 64-bit
> Unix still isn't portable to a modern system) or you're running
> non-free software produced by a really backwards company and you're a
> sucker.
>
> (Yet, I ran such a setup myself for a while. I foolishly wanted to
> run Adobe Flash.)
>
> /Jorgen
>
I was running 32-bit Linux on this machine, but after I upgraded to 64-bit
I noticed that programs were using a lot more memory to do the same stuff.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Windows 95 chime was created on a Mac [message #356711 is a reply to message #356707] |
Tue, 14 November 2017 11:27 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Nuwen
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>> Of course we love nostalgia (wouldn't otherwise read and write here) we
>> might have old 16Bit or 8Bit hardware, or emulate that.
>
> What about old computers used by the military? Atomic bombs must have
> old gear.
>
> /BAH
Keeping the stockpile up to date is a massive undertaking by the NNSA;
components that are suitable for upgrading are upgraded to modern CPUs
etc., although of course something which just checks a sensor every
second and sends an alert if something's "off" can just as well stay
8-bit.
nuwen
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
