HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@gu.uwa.edu.au (John West)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: VCS processor (was Re: Game machine processors)
Date: 3 Jan 1993 07:10:28 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: mackerel.gu.uwa.edu.au

peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>As for the graphics, I believe that like the Timex-Sinclair the VCS (2600)
>used the CPU to shift bits out to the video, which gave you considerable
>versatility at the expense of chewing up CPU time like the very dickens.

It wasn't quite the same. The Sinclair horror had a magical chip that would
redirect the data from memory to the screen, while feeding the processor
NOPs ($00). The processor would generate addresses, and generally handle
reading the data, but would never see it. Only the 'end of line' code
(one of the interrupt-type instructions) would make it through. Not only
did you have variable line lengths, you had to execute the screen to display
it.

The Atari had a much more sophisticated system. The graphics chip knew about
sprites, but had to have the DMA done for it - every line you would load in
data for whatever sprites were being displayed. This was done with load/store
type sequences, but it didn't matter where during the line the transfer was
done - the graphics chip had registers to hold the data until it was needed.

But still, both methods used hideous amounts of CPU time, leaving you only
vertical blanking to do useful things.

Once you'd plugged a cartridge into the Atari, the chip count for the two 
machines was the same - 4 chips.

If you want another horror story, there's a Sinclair Spectrum (don't know
what you Americans called it) sitting not 2m away from me. There is 48K
of RAM in it, divided into 2 parts - 16K for video, 32K for processor.
The processor had to be able to access both parts, and both processor and
video had to access their own private areas without interfering with the
other. This is usually done with buffers - isolate the two sections of the
bus, except when the processor wants to access video memory. No. 3 buffer
chips was too expensive for Clive, so they used resistors instead. When
both sections of the bus were being driven, then a current could flow 
through the resistor, allowing both ends to be at different voltages. When
the video was not driving its half, only a small current would flow through
the resistors, and the two halves would be at roughly the same level.

The Commodore 64 also uses half of a 74LS74 flip-flop as an inverter. Have a
look at the chart - when the other lines are set to appropriate levels, Q
will follow the negation of PRE. Seems they needed an inverter, but only had
a spare '74 in that section of the board.

Any other evil hardware hacks in production machines? Things that really
should never have been done?

John West
--
For the humour impaired: Insert a :-) after every third word
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Game machine processors (was Re: Is 4004 the first microprocessor ?)
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:56:05 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In <1993Jan2.180042.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> jbridson@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:

>In article <C08HAH.5LB@unix.portal.com>, cpc@shell.portal.com (Chris Cebelenski) writes:
>>  As a semi related thread, does anyone know what processors were used
>>  in home video game systems? (Atari VCS, Magnavox Odysessy, Intelevision,
>>  etc.)  Past and present?

>I forget the name of the VCS's CPU, but I do remember it was 6-bit, with 12
>-bit address.  Those cartridges had to fit in its 4KB address space!

>I think the VCS also had a different sort of sprite (or player-missile) 
>chip - it was rather limited in the amount of sprites it could have, but it 
>could display several copies of the same sprite.

The Odyssey may have used an F-8 at one point (earliest ones were
hardwired) but the VCS CPU was a 6502 variant, with 128 bytes of
RAM onboard (6507 comes to mind). The VCS graphics chip, Stella
(after the french bicycle of the same name) could only buffer one
scan line at a time (two 8-bit "players" and 40 bits of "playfield" that
could be either mirrored or repeated for a total of 80 pixels) and
so the cpu had to do everything on the fly. The internal clock was
synched to the tv color clock rate, so if you wanted you could even
change player positions and playfield bits within a single line. (Oh,
and the CPU address space was in fact 16 bits, but the designers saved
$.50 a unit in manufacturing costs by using a narrower cartridge connector.)
The atari 800/etc video chip added some rudimentary DMA counters so
that it could fetch subsequent lines of a player image from memory
by itself, btw. (for the definitive article on the VCS architecture,
see the March(?) '83 issue of IEEE Spectrum in your local engineering
library)

Mattel, meanwhile, used some goshawful 10-bit processor from General
Instruments, I think. 

paul
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: Jeremy_Reimer@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer)
Subject: let's start this off on the right bodily appendage...
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:50:59 GMT

OK, so as I'm typing this, I'm thinking:

"There's nothing quite like admitting your ignorance to 'hundreds, if not
thousands' of people whom you do not even know."

But then, why not.

I'm interested in famous and infamous "Net Personalities"  Obviously Kibo
would fit in to this category quite easily.  (But then again there is no
single 'Kibo' out there, is there?)

Or BIFF, THE GUY WHO TYPEZ IN ALL CAPZ.  Was there ever such a person or is
this just general commentary on C64 users?
Others?  Is there some kind of list, some explanation that someone could
post?
(Eagerly awaiting the thousands of snappy yet unhelpful replies...:)



--
Jeremy_Reimer@ |"It turned out, as N-Man discovered later, that the black
mindlink.bc.ca | boat hadn't been after him at all.  It was full of riotous,
---------------| unemployed former James Bond villains enraged at the fall
aka THE JAGUAR!| of Communism in the Soviet Union."
---------------|
Stealth Sig#69 |  --From "N-Man #3: N-Man on Holiday"

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology,alt.geek,alt.non.sequitur,alt.licker.store
From: mdw@db.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Proper pronounciation of 'Kibo'
Organization: The Linux Inquisition, Propaganda Division
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:47:59 GMT

In article <1h5b27INNe3b@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> harrisot@cps.msu.edu (Timothy R Harrison) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.095027.7642@news.columbia.edu> lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec18.151353.9559@adimail.uucp> tel@adimail.uucp (Terry Monks) writes:
>>
>>>You don't need to, the pronoun concept is included in the word, which
>>>declines
>>>		  Kibo
>>>		  Kibas
>>>		  Kibat
>>>		  Kibamus
>>>		  Kibant
>>>		  Klaatu     (Kibare is *very* irregular)
>	Kibo
>	Kibas
>	Kibat
>	Kibamus
>	Kibatis
>	Kibant

The verb form is conjugated, in Russian, as
 (Ya) Kibo 
 (Tii) Kibesh
 (On, ona, ono) Kibeyete
 (Mii) Kibyem
 (Vii) Bacon
 (Oni) Kibyat

The second person plural is irregular.

mdw

-- 
Matt Welsh     mdw@tc.cornell.edu     Cornell Theory Center
  "It's a Katana, ya Midwestern Computer Geek." --Tom Payne
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: rhutchin@pilot.njin.net (Roland Hutchinson)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Number of numbers (Was Re: PI)
Date: 30 Dec 92 07:50:32 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In <1992Dec30.010852.143@front.se> samuel@front.se writes:

>  - It is believed that Aleph-1 = C (the continuum hyothesis), but this
>    has not been proven yet !

Ye gads. Even the math experts around here don't know any math.  Why,
when I was a teenaged lad, we didn't have no stinkin' newsgroups.  We
didn't even have computers.  And we liked it.  We gnurds (thus
spelled) spent our time learning REAL mathematics.

As every schoolchild of my generation knows, the continuum hypothesis
is both CONSISTENT with and INDEPENDENT of the axioms of set theory,
with or without the axiom of choice.  You can prove (as Kurt Goedel
and Paul Cohen did twenty or thirty years ago) that you can neither
prove nor disprove it.  You may add either the continuum hypothesis or
its negation to your favorite flavor of set theory as you prefer.
(Cantorian and non-cantorian set theories, respectively.)

I should think that any graduate-level textbook on set theory (well,
maybe on model-theory) would have the proofs, and a very clever
proofs they are, too--or so I dimly remember thinking once upon a time.
Cohen invented "forcing" for the independence proof if memory serves.

It's been a while...somebody help me if I've made too much of a hash
of this!

Oh, and for the record:

Lambert proved that pi is irrational in 1761.
Liouville proved the existence of trancendental numbers in 1844.
Hermite proved that e is trancendental in 1882.
Lindemann (a student of Weirstrass) proved that pi is trancendental in
1882. 

You could look it up. (I just did, in D.J. Struik's excellent _Concise
History of Mathematics_.)

As you can guess from how long it took to do, the proof of pi's
irrationality is significantly harder than the proof for
garden-variety algebraic irrationals like the square root of 2, known
to be irrational since antiquity.

-- 
Roland Hutchinson                       Visiting Specialist/Early Music
 Internet: rhutchin@pilot.njin.net      Department of Music
 Bitnet: rhutchin@NJIN                  Montclair State College
                                        Upper Montclair, NJ 07043
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: elf@ee.ryerson.ca (luis fernandes)
Subject: Re: alt.fan.multics, any interest in a Multics (OS) newsgroup?
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:40:25 GMT

igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:

>I would kill to be able to type ``cp *.c =.c.old''.  

From the comp.unix.questions FAQ (What? Me, read a FAQ?):

    A program by Vladimir Lanin called "mmv" that does this job
    nicely was posted to comp.sources.unix (Volume 21, issues 87 and
    88) in April 1990.  It lets you use

    mmv '*.foo' '=1.bar'

    [...]

    If you have the "perl" language installed, you may find this
    rename script by Larry Wall very useful.  It can be used to
    accomplish a wide variety of filename changes.

        #!/usr/bin/perl
        #
        # rename script examples from lwall:
        #       rename 's/\.orig$//' *.orig
        #       rename 'y/A-Z/a-z/ unless /^Make/' *
        #       rename '$_ .= ".bad"' *.f
        #       rename 'print "$_: "; s/foo/bar/ if <stdin> =~ /^y/i' *

        $op = shift;
        for (@ARGV) {
            $was = $_;
            eval $op;
            die $@ if $@;
            rename($was,$_) unless $was eq $_;
        }

I've hopefully saved Mr. Batten a jail-term...

--
elf@ee.ryerson.ca
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:18463 sci.math:17563
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,sci.math
Subject: Re: So where can you get a slide rule?
Date: 31 Dec 1992 22:35:09 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

My watch, a Seiko "Flight Computer," has a circular slide
rule around the bezel.  It does multiplicative operations,
and has markings for conversions among kilometers, statute
or nautical miles, or thousands of feet; liters or US or
Imperial gallons and pounds of fuel or oil; kilograms and
pounds; plus a ring marked with inverse (not negative) time
for ETA vs. speed wrt 60MPH.

				--Blair
				  "Which reminds me; I have to go
				   home and dial up WWV to set it
				   correctly for later tonight..."
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Subject: Re: "FOO" and Re: 8008 related to PDP-11? (was: What is so greate ...)
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:48:32 GMT

In article <jcmorris.724950632@mwunix> jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:
>
>Correct as written.  To change the location counter to absolute 123,
>the Flexowriter input tape would contain the line:
>
>123/
>
>Most of today's assemblers implement this function with the ORG pseudo-op
>so the modern equivalent would be
>
>     ORG   123

ORG harkens back to the 360 assembler F days.

PDP-8's use *123

However, PDP-8 ODT/DDT would use

123/

to open the location to display and/or change

Thus, to toggle in a short program you might use:

200/ 1234 7200		the 1234 was the old contents; now hit LF to goto next
00201/ 1234 7001	the 1234 was the old contents; now hit LF to goto next
00202/ 1234 7402	the 1234 was the old contents; now hit LF to close
200G			start it up at 00200

Some assemblers allow using the CLC as ., and allowing it to be a pseudo-
variable that can be stored into.

	.=123

or even

	.=.-10

Also, some assemblers use * instead of . for the CLC.

cj "orgs 'R us" l
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson)
Subject: Re: PI
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:34:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.195328.19162@icaen.uiowa.edu> dsiebert@icaen.uiowa.edu (Doug Siebert) writes:
>samuel@front.se writes:
>
>>One interesting fact about PI (and most of the non-rational/non-algebraic)
>>numbers is that since PI has an infinite number of decimals, which appear in
>>a non-systemathic fashion, then statistically this statement ought to be 
>>correct : Somwhere in the decimals of PI, one can find any given arbitrary
>>sequence of numbers, e.g. 10^100 number 7 (7777...7777; 10^100 7s in a row) !
>
>It isn't proven (to my knowledge at least) that PI is nonterminating.  

SIGH. Don't they teach you anything at school nowadays?

It *is* proven, and indeed it's one of the best-publicized results of
19th-century mathematics, that pi is not only irrational (i.e. its
decimal expansion is nonterminating), but transcendental as well
(which means that it's not the root of any algebraic equation). The
methods used to prove this have nothing whatsoever to do with
calculating a lot of digits of pi and seeing whether the decimal
expansion terminates or not.

>If
>those who calculate PI on and on hit a string of 10^100 0's they would
>probably assume they have found all the digits of PI, wouldn't they?  But
>they couldn't be *sure*! :-)

Mathematics hasn't really been an experimental science for the last
2500 years or so, even though the art of experimentation in
mathematics never died out (and is reviving thanks to computers).

Assuming for a moment that the irrationality of pi hadn't already been
proved (which it has), and that the pi-computers found a long string
of zeroes, people wouldn't be satisfied with _assuming_ that they'd
found the end, but would start trying to prove (or disprove) it with
rigorous methods, and they wouldn't rest until they'd settled the
question. 

But this is of course a moot point. If the pi-computers ever find a
sequence of 10^100 consecutive zeroes (and I think they'll have to compute
an awful lot of decimals before they do :-)), they _will_ be *sure*
that they haven't seen the end of it.
 
              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: Jessica.Cohen@f27.n243.z1.fidonet.org (Jessica Cohen)
Sender: fredmail@helldisk.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Binary clock for X Windows.
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 02:05:50 -0500

That's nothing, try building a clock  which uses a tachyon particle
decelarator as it's time base, and measures time by the exponential 
difference of the speed of the tachyon particles compared to the speed of
light, all squared to the nth degree and summed into an elemnetary vector
equation.  Of course the clockface is protected by an infinite number of
magnetic monopoles, and it works so well that photons literally are left
behind!   Unfortunately I have as yet to design a way to actually read the
time from this clock,  hmm, maybe if I encase it in the remenents of a
supernova. By Jove! that's exactly it!
These clocks on sale now.


 * Origin: Hell On A Disk C.S. * University Net * (613) 569-0290 * (1:243/27)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: kst@telesoft.com (Keith Thompson @pulsar)
Subject: Re: Number of numbers (Was Re: PI)
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 08:45:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.010852.143@front.se> samuel@front.se writes:
[...]
> Now that I have thought some more about it, I'm modifying my statement to
> be "ALMOST ALL trancendental numbers".
> 
> The reason for this is :
>   - All trancendental numbers that DOESN'T have a pseudo-random decimal
>     expansion must have a rule that describes the principle of
>     how this non-pseudo-random decimal expansion is "implemented".
>   - This rule can be encoded into an integer number.
>   - Thereby, all such trancendental numbers correspond to an integer and
>     are ENUMERABLE.
>   - ...which proves that such trancendental numbers are just as 'rare' as
>     rational or algebraic numbers !
>   - Could also be expressed as : There exists only Aleph-0 (*) "such 
>     trancendental" numbers; where Aleph-0 denotes the (infinite) number of 
>     all enumerable numbers.

I agree that "almost all" real numbers have pseudo-random decimal
expansions, but I believe that the set of real numbers whose decimal
expansions are not pseudo-random has the same cardinality as the set of
all real numbers.  (Definitions of "almost all" and "pseudo-random" are
left as an exercise for someone else.)  I'll use the term "pseudo-random
number" for a real number whose decimal expansion is pseudo-random, and
"non-random number" for any other real number.  For each pseudo-random
number, one can generate a uniquely corresponding non-random number by,
for example, inserting 0's into its decimal representation:

3.14159... => 3.0104010509...
2.71828... => 2.0701080208...
0.33333... => 0.0303030303...
42         => 402

The number 3.0104010509..., for example, is non-random, since it's at
least 50% 0's, probably 55%.

Now that I think about it, I don't know how to prove that "almost all"
real numbers are pseudo-random, but it seems intuitively obvious.

On the other hand, the set of real numbers that have finite
descriptions is countable (i.e., there are only Aleph-0 such number).

Here's a fun little paradox:

Each integer can be described by a finite string of ASCII characters.
What is the smallest positive integer not describable by a string of
100 or fewer ASCII characters?  Isn't this integer described by the
string "the smallest positive integer not describable by a string of
100 or fewer ASCII characters"?
-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith)  kst@telesoft.com
TeleSoft, 5959 Cornerstone Court West, San Diego, CA, 92121-9891
"Listen to me, people!  We must stick them with quills -- it's the only way!"
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: hdavies@rx.xerox.com (Hugh J.E. Davies)
Subject: Giving away equipment.(Was Re: What is so greate about the PDP 10?)
Reply-To: hdavies@rx.xerox.com
Organization: Rank Xerox Ltd.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 09:32:08 GMT

We have tried to give away equipment on numerous occasions, usually to local schools or charitable organisations, and we have come up against the following problems;

1) The legal people worry about liability. (What happens if it electrocutes little Johnny?)

2) The data centre people worry about support (What do we do if the school rings up wanting help?)

3) The finance people worry. (To scrap off a piece of kit with nil value seems to require about 4 pages of formfilling, several signatures and about a day of valuable time.)

4) The recipients quite often don't want the stuff anyway - most local schools seem to have fast 486s.

I've given up trying to give stuff away, and indeed I put 3 Xerox 630 printers and an 820 CP/M machine in the scrap on Monday. Sad, isn't it?

---


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.

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.religion.kibology
From: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Subject: Re: Jargon 2.9.11 coming out Jan 1st
Reply-To: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:07:25 GMT

In article <1jwrZg#8kwHBV05SNmd78Q8pH4y138x=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>I'm planning to release the Jargon File v.2.9.11 on January 1st 1993.  If
>you want your entries in the next major revision, get 'em in now.

  I always thought the "kibo" entry in the Jargon File was missing an
important secondary definition...any of the folks on a.r.k care to get
one together?

--
Jonathan Lennox
jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu



Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: alt.fan.multics, any interest in a Multics (OS) newsgroup?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 12:10:15 GMT

In article <BzpuMp.G6y@fulcrum.co.uk> igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
> I would kill to be able to type ``cp *.c =.c.old''.

	for i in *.c; do cp $i $i.old; done

> I'd also like to be able to use the com_arg_ stuff to find out if the
> code is running as an active function.

	!isatty(1);

Or provide a command line argument.

Personally, I'd rather the program *always* produce terse output. I've
been burned enough times by programs that don't do that.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   Oletko halannut suttasi tnn?
  'U`    
Tarjoilija, tm ateria el viel.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Apple IIGS being discontinued Dec 1992
From: don@zl2tnm.gen.nz (Don Stokes)
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:57:50 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Wolery

lowen@lorc.eskimo.com (Lamar Owen) writes:
> Yes, you do hear about the 68010.  Virtual memory was added to the 000, along with
> some improvements in execution speed.  AT&T UnixPC's use 010's, as do many other
> nice computers.  Sun made quite a few workstations on top of the 010, as did Apollo.

What I thought odd when I first ran across it was the three word cache
on the 68010 & 68012 (the former being a drop-in replacement for the
68000, the latter has a slightly expanded address bus and one or two other
external differences).

Three word cache?  What use is a three word cache?

All is revealed when you note (a) that there are no block move instructions,
(b) that there are autoincrement/autodecrement addressing modes that can
be used in a one word MOVE instruction and (c) there is a convenient DBcc
(Test Condition, Decrement and Branch) instruction that is two words 
long...


When I was actually interested in Amigas (ie in 1986 when I wasted more money
than I could afford on the damn thing), the standard speedup was to just drop
a 68010 in place of the 68000.  You needed to add a minor patch to deal with
the fact the MOVE SR,xxx instruction is privileged on the '010 and isn't on
the '000.

(These days, the Amiga just works as a convenient speech synthesiser for
my even older but somewhat more useful (to me, anyway) VAXstation II...)

--
Don Stokes, ZL2TNM (DS555)                        don@zl2tnm.gen.nz (home)
Network Manager, Computing Services Centre            don@vuw.ac.nz (work)
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand              +64-4-495-5052