HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Subject: Re: Apple IIGS being discontinued Dec 1992
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: USA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:08:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.192006.1316@afs.com> tjhendry@queen.mcs.drexel.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.081753.6136@news.columbia.edu>  
>lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>> Quite true, but no one should have to resort to crap like that to overcome
>> the possible treachery of a giant company that wants to lockout its potential
>> competition by putting up obstacles that are of no particular benefit to any
>> user.  (Gee, this is starting to sound like Microsoft MS-DOS versus DR-DOS.)
>
>Yep, that hulking, monolithic NeXT wants to keep people from buying its software. Uh huh. Gee, they have all of what, 600 people.
>
No, Intel is the referenced Monolith.

>Has anyone thought that maybe it's not in NeXT's financial interest to say it won't run on Cyrix chips? So maybe there's a real reason for saying it?

The possibility is that NeXT was manipulated into this situation by Intel.

>
>Of course, Intel did foot the bill (or a substantial part of it) for the port.

Exactly, and who knows where they substituted quirk-related requirements for
reasonable ones.

>
>I think the problem is in some instruction that's missing. I don't know the specifics. Someone else posted something about "bswap" being in the 486 but not the 386. If I'm not mistaken, the Cyrix chip is a  386 that's been reengineered to provide near-486 performance. If that's the case, then it may not support bswap.
>
>Again, I don't have docs in front of me.

No, the difference is not the instruction set at all.  You are describing the
difference between Intel designs.  The Cyrix chip is a 486 instruction set in
a 386 socket.  The instructions aren't missing at all; this is the crux of
the argument - since the instructions are the same, why wouldn't software run
on either.

>
>On the other hand, in a few months, everyone will want to run NeXTSTEP on their Pentium machines, and the Cyrix thing will become less of an issue, since they don't sell a Pentium clone.

I doubt if "everyone" will want to run NeXTSTEP on anything, and moreover I
doubt that "everyone" will go out and buy the next Intel over-priced machine
right away.

cjl
From: hwt@bcarh11a.BNR.CA (Henry Troup)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Voice (was Re: Apple IIGS being discontinued Dec 1992)
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:07:08 GMT
Reply-To: Henry.Troup@BNR.CA
Distribution: world
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1993Jan2.053341.4665@ra.msstate.edu>,
jmpierce@whale.st.usm.edu (Jimmy Malcolm Pierce) writes:

|> (P. J. Remner) writes:
|>>And then a madman ... yells "ERASE HARD DISK!"
|>
|>   Of course the computers are set to recognize the peoples' voices
...
|>resumes work. No big deal

Except that the madman is R.T. Morris III, and has an electronic
megaphone that distorts his voice in particular ways;  and then there
are all the people who didn't take the time to customize their machines;
and the known bugs in the Sparc XLVI "ear" program; and the usual stuff
found in comp.risks.

It's February 342nd, 1992, by the way:-)

Henry Troup - H.Troup@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
	   "Our captain didn't care to make his wife a widow yet..."
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:18595 sci.math:17685 comp.compression:4322
From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,sci.math,comp.compression
Subject: Re: Compressing decimal expansion of pi (was Re: PI)
Date: 5 Jan 93 11:50:05 GMT
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden

In article <willmore.726163337@kiev.gis.iastate.edu> willmore@iastate.edu (David Willmore) writes:
>By way of comparrison, here are the results for a few other compressors:
>
>zip 1.0
>719125 pi.zip
>
>arc 5.21
>680509 pi.arc
>
>hpack 0.78a0
>608284 pi.hpk
>
>compress
>680354 pi.Z
>
>compact
>629760 pi.C
>
>pack
>629605 pi.z
>
>freeze
>713458 pi.F
>
>freeze (with statist generated entry)
>696613 pi.F


Some more results:

zoo 2.10:   697487 pi.zoo
arj 2.39a:  686703 pi.arj
zip 1.9:    677829 pi.zip

These results were obtained on a PC, but I transferred pi.dat as a
binary file to get the same contents as under Unix (had I transferred
it as text, MS-DOS would have replaced all newlines with CR-LF pairs). 

For comparison, the theoretical limit (assuming there really is no
redundancy in pi's decimal expansion) is what you get if it was stored
in binary form, i.e. 1000000 / log_10(2) bits = 3321928 bits = 415242
bytes. 

              Magnus Olsson                | \e+      /_
    Department of Theoretical Physics      |  \  Z   / q
        University of Lund, Sweden         |   >----<           
 magnus@thep.lu.se, thepmo@seldc52.bitnet  |  /      \===== g
PGP key available via finger or on request | /e-      \q
From: azog@spatula.rent.com (Billy D'Augustine)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Apple IIGS being discontinued Dec 1992
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:09:50 GMT
Organization: A kitchen utensil somewhere in central New Jersey

In article <1993Jan6.061801.23114@kth.se> regebro@stacken.kth.se (Lennart Regebro) writes:
>No, they're not! :)
>There is no "Eject disk" button on a Mac. You're supposed to drag the disk
>icon to the trashcan. Which always makes me feel like I'm erasing the
>whole disk. Well, well. And whats wrong with a shutdown command? Try to
>Turn off a Unix system without the proper shutdown sequence, and the sysop
>will put you through the meat grinder.
>

As Im sure someone else will point out, there is a panic button on the
Macs disk drives (or at least, used to be). You just needed a bent 
paperclip and some nerve (people have fits when you stick metal objects
into their computers. Me, I dont mind :-)

>Also, on VMS systems, when you want to talk to the tape you have to do
>a lot of software commands, and I would belive that its the case on most
>multiuser OS's. This is to make sure that no one else writes to it at the
>same time, and that you dont take the tape out before you're finished
>writing to it. So why not on a Mac?

Your points regarding shutdown and the disks are valid, but not on a Mac.
A Mac is (basiclly) a single-user system, so who else would be writing 
to a disk but you? 

(dunno about you, but its real easy to take to a tape on VMS:
$ mount mua0: label
which will allocate that drive to you, but you can allocate without
mounting:
$ alloc mua0: ... )

As to shutdown, cant say for sure on a Mac, but since OS/2, and Windows
are Mac-wannabes, doing a proper shutdown saves your current desktop.
If I kill the power on my OS/2 machine without shutting down, any changes
arent saved (plus, some other evilness might occur). On Windoze, who cares?
There is no desktop to worry about.

On my Atari ST, I pull down a menubar and click on SAVE DESKTOP, which
writes an ASCII file called NEWDESK.INF (or DESKTOP.INF, for older 
machines), with all the window info, etc, in it. This is nice, since 
I can edit the file (if you understand the syntax), and load the new
desktop via another menu entry (LOAD DESKTOP? dont do it that often).
Would be nice to have it automatic, tho...

(as an aside, someone please tell me this... on my Atari, pretty much 
every command has a keyboard equivalant (in TOS 2.06). For instance, if
I press ALT-C, Ill open a new window to drives C: root directory (file
structure is similar to MS-DOS, with the lame limitation of 8.3 filenames).
Pressing V will save the desktop, C close top window, etc. Even mouse
movement have keyboard equvalent, pressing ALT (and ALT-SHIFT) moves the
pointer, and ALT INSERT is a click). Anyways, all keyboard commands are
definable. Under OS/2, Windows, and DECwindows (DECs mutation of X), theres
nothing like this (yes, under MS-Windows, pressing ALT will pull down
the menu bar, but it aint the same)

-- 
Billy D'Augustine 
azog@spatula.rent.com

Evil walks behind me.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: hdavies@rx.xerox.com (Hugh J.E. Davies)
Subject: Re: What happened to "smart buildings"? an
Reply-To: hdavies@rx.xerox.com
Organization: Rank Xerox Ltd.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:41:21 GMT

In article 184887@pyramid.pyramid.com, lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>In article <0fHmIpe00Vp5M6561Y@andrew.cmu.edu> jf41+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan R. Ferro) writes:
>>matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy) writes:
>
>   Would anyone from the UK care to expound on "TV licensing"?
>
>   I saw some pubic service announcements and newspaper warnings
>   about this on a trip recently.  I'm sure the truth is much more
>   bizarre than anything I could make up.  


The truth isn't that bizarre.

Essentially, the Government taxes the use of TV sets, by requiring everyone who owns one to buy a license. The money raised is used to pay for the BBC.

Nothing to do with a.f.c, tho.
---


Regards,

Hugh.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't speak for Xerox, nor they for me.

Rank Xerox European Systems Centre, Welwyn Garden City, Herts., UK.
Mail to; Huge.wgc1@rx.xerox.com, whatever it says in the header.
From: monnier+@cs.cmu.edu (Stefan Monnier)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Number of instructions in microprocessors
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:10:39 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1993Jan5.005419.16209@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
>
>I'd like to know how many instructions some popular microprocessors have,
>and this group would undoubtedly jump at the chance to pull out this kind
>of trivia. :-) (Undoubtedly we'll also learn some other stuff along the way.)
>
>I'll start:
>
>ARM (RISC):		<30
>6502 (RISC?):		55
>8086 (non-RISC):	90+
>Alpha (RISC):		150 (approx)
>VAX (non-RISC):		>400
>
>PJDM
>--
>Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
>Digital Equipment Corporation   |
>Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat

Of course, my first reaction is: what's an instruction exactly ?
For example on the 68000, is 'MOVE.B' an instruction or is 'MOVE' (the
'B' being just a parameter) ?

Considering 'MOVE' as being an instruction, I believe the 68000 (and
hence, the 68008, 68010 and (don't know if it has ever existed but..)
68012) has a bit less than 50 instructions. (and 14 addressing modes)

Another note (about ARM): as far as I know, the ARM has 4 condition
bits for every instruction. So, how did you get to <30 ? did you
consider those condition bits as parameters (= only 1 branch
instruction) ?

	Stefan
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca (Charlie Gibbs)
Subject: Re: Anyone care to brag?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:51:14 GMT

In article <1is3fvINNcgf@armory.centerline.com> jimf@centerline.com
(Jim Frost) writes:

>I see too many people bluff their way into positions they can't
>handle.  Some of them grow into the position, but many of them just
>make life hell for the rest of us and then, mercifully, leave --
>presumably making someone else's life miserable.

     Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach.  Those who can't
teach become consultants.

     No smileys here, I'm afraid.  The nice thing about being a
consultant is that by the time things fall apart you've been paid
and are long gone - probably planting the seeds of another disaster
somewhere else.

Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca
"I'm cursed with hair from HELL!"  -- Night Court

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: ardai@zax.eda.teradyne.com (Michael Ardai)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ... SC/MP
Organization: Teradyne, Inc. Boston MA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:07:13 GMT

In article <7123@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> mark-r@spec0.ee.man.ac.uk (Mark Robinson (JO PhD)) writes:
-1. What was the proper numeric title of the SC/MP (Single
-Chip / Microprocessor - often called SCaMP, SCaMPy, SCruMPy, etc).
-Was it the 1802?

Fuzzy memory - I think it was the NS8060 (same family as the 8073 with
tiny basic in ROM).  Definitely not the 1802 (the Elf, VIP, and Studio 2
were 1802-based)

-2. Why was it so popular in hobbyist SBC kits and evaluation
-boards in the mid-late 70's, but then died such an abrupt death?

From what I heard, the 8073 died when they refused to give free samples
to Steve Ciarcia.  He built his SBC around the Z8, and then nobody payed
much attention to the 8073.  This may have affected the 8060.

Wasn't the SC/MP kit the one that used thumb tacks and a probe for the
keyboard?

/mike

-- 
\|/  Michael L. Ardai  N1IST   Teradyne EDA 
--- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
/|\  ardai@maven.dnet.teradyne.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: khchung@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr KH Chung)
Subject: Re: What happened to "smart buildings"?  and three tangents
Summary: not quite
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 11:15:05 GMT

In article <1ii73pINNkoe@rodan.UU.NET>, avg@rodan.UU.NET (Vadim Antonov) writes:
> In article <C0Hysr.4oD@NeoSoft.com> claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
> >say, "Mine, all mine, and you can't do anything about it!"?
> 
> Exactly.  The exchange equipment is protected from everything
> including the direct hit of lightning and you basically
> can do noting to damage it (bombing the building maybe...)
> 
> --vadim

It is supposed to be able to survive a direct hit... it usually does not.
It will survive one jolt, apparently, but one lightning strike is not just
one jolt... it is some 6 to 8 jolts in under 1 sec. Ouch!
From: dicks@math.ohio-state.edu (Ethan Dicks)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: C64 (seven Zillions served)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 19:48:57 -0500
Organization: Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu

In article <1993Jan7.104833.17549@vlsi.polymtl.ca> d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
>What I would like to know :
>
> - How many C64 where sold 
  Over 8 million.  1 million were sold in fiscal (Sep. 30) 1991 alone!
> - Is it still made
  Yes.  
> - If not when did it stop production in original form, in a modified form.
  There are two basic variants... the C64 and C64C.  The internal difference
was 8 64Kx1 RAMs vs 2 64Kx4 RAMs and a 6510 vs an 8500 CPU (the 6510 is a
6502 with a 6 pin I/O port at mem locations 0 and 1, and the 8500 is a 65C02
with the same I/O port).  Externally, the C64C is shorter with a white external
case.

> - Is the 6502 which was at its base still produced 
  See above.  The C64 never used an actual 6502 like the PET, VIC-20 or
Apple ][.  The 6 I/O lines are used for hardware memory management (to swap
RAM and ROM in and out in several combinations to allow for 64K of RAM and
16K of ROM as well as 4K of I/O space and up to 16K of external ROM.

-ethan
-- 
n8emr!uncle!jcnpc!kumiss!erd@zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu or erd@kumiss.UUCP
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:18613 sci.math:17708
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,sci.math
Subject: Re: Number of numbers (Was Re: PI)
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:26:26 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1993Jan5.020509.18268@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.232723.3685@smsc.sony.com> markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden) writes:
>>1)  ========== primitive recursive functions
>>    The are the functions which you can compute in a typical general-
>>    purpose computer language, except that before you enter any loop
>>    you must first compute an upper bound on the maximum number of
>>    times you will be allowed to pass through the loop, and must not
>>    exceed this pre-computed upper bound.

>  [description of "partial recursive", "total recursive"]

>>Suppose you define a real number to be "primitive recursive" if there is
>>a primitive recursive function which computes the Nth decimal digit as
>>a function of N.  Same for a "total recursive" real number.

>>Does anyone know whether PI is primitive recursive by the definition above?
>>If not, this fact seems to capture a bit of Samuel's "gut feeling" that
>>his example SUM(10^-(n!)) is "much simplier to calculate" than PI, since
>>SUM(10^-(n!)) is clearly primitive recursive.

>Sorry; pi is primitive recursive. Take any of the squillions of formulas
>for pi which give error terms which actually give bounds on how far wrong
>a given approximation is. (For instance, though I wouldn't dream of
>actually computing pi with this, pi=4(1-1/3+1/5-1/7+1/9...) where the
>error incurred by stopping at any given point is at most equal to the
>size of the next term.) Then compute how many terms you need to take to
>get the first N decimal places, and what sort of precision you need to
>use; and run the algorithm that far. No unbounded loops in sight.

Is this really true?  After all, we know that there are arbitrarily
long strings of consecutive 0s and 9s in the decimal expansion of PI.
What precision to I need to compute the Nth digit of PI if that Nth
digit is at teh beginning of such a sequence?  After all, you can
change the value of digit N by adding (for 9s) or subtracting (for 0s)
and arbitrarily small value if the string of identical digits is long
enough.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Robert DeMillo )
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.ghost-stories
Subject: Re: Phantom Ship Inquiry
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:18:42 GMT
	<DEMILLO.93Jan6121823@dogberry.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
	<1993Jan6.225205.10462@ptdcs2.intel.com>
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab: Fine Food and Coffee

In article <1993Jan6.225205.10462@ptdcs2.intel.com> lhales@ptdcs2.intel.com (Loyde Hales ~) writes:
>In article <DEMILLO.93Jan6121823@dogberry.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
>demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Robert DeMillo ) writes:

>>In article <20216.2b48e608@ul.ie> 9210466@ul.ie writes:
>>> > I seem to remember hearing something about a large naval ship, maybe a 
>>> > battleship, "disappearing" temporarily in the Philadelphia ship yards.  I
>>
>>The rumour is that the US Navy was working on a way of rending battleships
>>invisible to Japanese radar. (*Not* cloaked, as in "Star Trek." ;) ) 
>>Something went wrong and the ship momentarily disappeared...when it 
>>reappeared, the crewmen were found dead in strange ways...
>>The US government quickly hushed it up and stopped the radar experiments.
>>...

>>...in reality, no one is allowed access because it never happened. The
>>Navy *was* performing radar experiment on board a ship in the 
>>Philly harbor in the mid-40's, but the type of radar work they were
>>doing never was released. The radar work was stopped, presumably for
>>normal reasons: couldn't make it work, ran out of money, etc etc etc.
>>...

>According to one (REASONABLY reliable source at the Pentagon), the reason that
>the experimental results were never released is that it was (partially?)
>a success.  One contact I have at the Air Force told me that the modern
>RSSD (Radar Sonar Scrambling Device) on military planes/submarines is
>PARTIALLY based on this study.
>-- 
>Loyde W. Hales II

Oh sure...I have no doubt that they were performing radar jamming and
scrambling experiments...and there was a degree of success and that's
why no one is allowed access to the information....but, making the 
ship *invisible*? Come on!

Chances are very good that the experiments were stopped because the 
technology wasn't quite good enough to make the system work reliably....


--


 - Rob DeMillo			| Internet: 	  demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu
   MIT Lincoln Lab 		| America Online: exgalileo@aol.com
   Weather Sensing - Group 43	| Reality:        617-981-2105 (office)

"Operation Goofy now in effect!"
	--- Tom Servo, "Gamera vs. Gaos," Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Robert DeMillo )
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.ghost-stories
Subject: Re: Phantom Ship Inquiry
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:18:23 GMT
	<20216.2b48e608@ul.ie>
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab: Fine Food and Coffee

In article <20216.2b48e608@ul.ie> 9210466@ul.ie writes:
> > I seem to remember hearing something about a large naval ship, maybe a 
> > battleship, "disappearing" temporarily in the Philadelphia ship yards.  I
> > don't recall when this was supposed to have happened.  Can anyone fill 
> > in the details?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Brian

> I think you are talking about the Philadelphia Experiment although I am not sure
> . If this is what you are talking about I do not have much information on the 
>  actual happenings except that it was an experiment by the U.S. government to 
>  achieve a cloaking ability for their ships.

This "legend" has been around for a few decades now, and occasionally
gets brought back up to public conscienceness by various media flare
ups like the movie "The Philidelphia Experiment," from a few years back.

The rumour is that the US Navy was working on a way of rending battleships
invisible to Japanese radar. (*Not* cloaked, as in "Star Trek." ;) ) 
Something went wrong and the ship momentarily disappeared...when it 
reappeared, the crewmen were found dead in strange ways (melded into
the metal, etc etc etc). The US government quickly hushed it up and
stopped the radar experiments. No one is allowed access to the
information regarding the event...

...in reality, no one is allowed access because it never happened. The
Navy *was* performing radar experiment on board a ship in the 
Philly harbor in the mid-40's, but the type of radar work they were
doing never was released. The radar work was stopped, presumably for
normal reasons: couldn't make it work, ran out of money, etc etc etc.
The ship *never* disappeared and the crewmen didn't die (except the
usual way, of course).

Think about it...if a ship *disappeared* in the middle of a busy,
suburban harbor like Philly, we'd know about it...hushed up by the
US government or not. How stuff like this gets perpetuated through
the years is the *real* mystery....

--


 - Rob DeMillo			| Internet: 	  demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu
   MIT Lincoln Lab 		| America Online: exgalileo@aol.com
   Weather Sensing - Group 43	| Reality:        617-981-2105 (office)

"Operation Goofy now in effect!"
	--- Tom Servo, "Gamera vs. Gaos," Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: 9210466@ul.ie
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.ghost-stories
Subject: Re: Phantom Ship Inquiry
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:36:08 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland

In article <1992Dec23.153519.1@stc10.ctd.ornl.gov>, ibc@stc10.ctd.ornl.gov writes:
> In article <BzFwp4.CMz@world.std.com>, rjc@world.std.com (Richard J Callahan) writes:
>> 
>>  I am researching phantom ship legends and sightings along the New
>> England coast, concentrating especially on the areas of Casco Bay and
>> Penobscot Bay in Maine. 
>> 
> 
> I seem to remember hearing something about a large naval ship, maybe a 
> battleship, "disappearing" temporarily in the Philadelphia ship yards.  I
> don't recall when this was supposed to have happened.  Can anyone fill 
> in the details?
> 
> Thanks,
> Brian

I think you are talking about the Philadelphia Experiment although I am not sure
. If this is what you are talking about I do not have much information on the 
 actual happenings except that it was an experiment by the U.S. government to 
 achieve a cloaking ability for their ships. I have heard many things about 
 what actually happened to the crewmembers aboard the ship. I cannot think
 of the names of the books written on this subject but maybe somebody else 
 can fill you in on these details. It's worth checking out.

  Any Flames/Email to : 9210466@ul.ie
  University of Limerick,
   Ireland
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.ghost-stories