HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca (Charlie Gibbs)
Subject: Re: Apple IIGS being disc
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:54:43 GMT

In article <8456.168.uupcb@ssr.com> dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
(Dick Zeitlin) writes:

>What is it that you find offensive about software-controlled power, or
>disk drives that can eject their contents automagically?

     As for me, nothing.  In fact, I think it's generally a Good
Thing that the standard method of ejecting disks or shutting down
contains safeguards to ensure that everything is cleaned up first.
I think the only objection that many of us have is something that
seems to be part of the Mac's (and Pascal's, for that matter)
design philosophy:  THERE IS NO OVERRIDE.

     Remember that despite everyone's best intentions, things still
go wrong.  Naive users can often do little to save themselves, and
it's almost impossible to walk someone through a major cleanup over
the telephone.  You pretty well just have to say, "Sorry, you're SOL.
Did you study that part about making backups?"  On the other hand,
experienced users can often work out some clever way to restore
things - if given the opportunity.  I'm sure many of us have been
hailed as miracle workers because we pulled off some nifty hack
which saved the day despite (or, on second thought, due to) being
entirely outside of normal procedures.  Of course, if the system
is designed to prevent such tricks, then there's not much that
anyone can do.

     One thing that many people forget is that we're not saying
everyone must use a CLI - that is just as evil as someone saying
that everyone must use a GUI.  It's much better to offer a choice.
Start a new user off with something simple, but once he learns
things about the system, offer him choices of things that he might
be able to use better.  Otherwise, what's the point of learning
anything at all?

>Consumer computers should be designed for consumers.  They should be
>easy for the average person to use.

     Ideally, they should be easy for the non-average person (e.g.
us) to use too.  If a machine is frustrating to me, I won't use it
no matter how easy it is for the "average" person to use.

Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca
"It's lonely here, there's no one left to torture."  -- Leonard Cohen

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: rhca80@melton.sps.mot.com (Henry Melton)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ... SC/MP
Organization: SPS
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:04:43 GMT

Ah SC/MP.  It brings back a lot of memories.  I purchased the "SC/MP
Kit" through a distributor.  It had a ROM monitor (512 bytes) I think
and 256 bytes RAM with a software serial port.  This was my first home
computer project.  I went wild with it.  Radio Shack experimenter
cards made the basis of my extension memory (2kb), my home-designed
video interface (32x16), my Lancaster circuit cassette interface and
my Selectric typewriter interface converter.  I had it all neatly (for
me) packaged with a full keyboard inside an old electric typewriter
shell.

After I had moved on to other machines, I finally disposed of it
somehow.  The wiring became impossible to repair.  I had wired up all
those extension cards using a "vector-wrap??" tool.  It was a plastic
pen with a spool of 32 gauge wire at the top.  You wrapped the wire a
few times around the pins of the IC's and then soldered through the
plastic insulation on the wire.  It worked fine, but the wire was
thin as hair, and when it broke, it was stiff enough that it didn't
sag enough to reveal which wire had broken.

I wrote a lot of software for that system.  My peak was a full
word-processor system that allowed me to write my articles and
stories, format them (paged in chunks to cassette tape) and then print
the result out on the Selectric.  I wrote the system up in an article
for BYTE.  They sat on it for a couple of years and then paid me the
kill fee for the article after SC/MP had already been eclipsed by
other more powerful systems.  If memory serves, none of my SC/MP
articles were published :-{.
From: daniel@mertwig.uucp (Daniel Drucker)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Operating Systems; retrocomputing
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 17:04:35 EST
Reply-To: daniel%mertwig@uunet.uu.net  (Daniel Drucker)
Organization: Abnormalities of Reality


What were some of the very first operating systems? I'm interested in
trying them out if emulators exist... (Where are there ITS emulators?
(Is that an early OS, or is that late in comparison? I'm not very
knowledgeable about such things...))

What was the first (high-level) language to be implemented in the ITS
system at MIT?



--
Daniel Drucker        N2SXX       Coconut seashells whispering to me
daniel%mertwig@uunet.uu.net         "Forever, forever, my Coda..."
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Acronym ISDN
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:06:23 GMT

   "I Still Don't Need it"

   Thanks awfully,
              Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.sys.intel
From: bhenning@wimsey.bc.ca (Bill Henning)
Subject: Re: NeXTstep not running on Cyrix 486DLC (was Re: Apple IIGS...)
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:07:08 GMT

>It should.  A 486 is much faster than a 386 of the same speed.  Case in
>point: The 486SX/25 (like the one I'm using now) is a little faster than
>an AMD 386/40, but the 486SX is upgradeable for $450.
>
>-- 
>aj923@cleveland.freenet.edu (So now you listen, 'cause I'm omniscient)

I am not sure that is the case. Did Byte not run some benchmarks about a
year ago that showed that a 386/40 consistently beat a 486SX25 on almost
every bencmark?

I have an Amd386/40, 64k cache, Cyrix FasMath 387 based machine at home,
and I don't really notice a speed difference between it and the 486/33
256k cache machine I have at work.

Bill
From: andor@inode.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: VCS PROCESSOR (WAS RE
Date: 11 Jan 93 09:05:47 EST
Reply-To: andor@inode.com
Distribution: world
Organization: inode BBS, Usenet Access for NYC (212-679-9146)

 -=> Quoting Pt@geovision.gvc.com to News <=-

 Pt> just have been a Commodore-bigot's point of view.  (My disk drive was
 Pt> smarter than my computer - it had 3 6502s in it!)  (Sort of reminiscent
 Pt> of the time when the most powerful computer Apple made was the
 Pt> Laserwriter) 

I almost have that situation now. I have a 486/33 and an HPLJ 4. The HPLJ 4
uses a 20Mhz Intel 860, which is at least similar in speed to the 486/33. The
printer also has 6MB of memory, which is close to the 8MB in my PC. 

... What do you mean? You actually read this Tagline?!?
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
#! rnews 1
From: trilo@spatula.rent.com (Ross Presser)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: PI
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:34:39 GMT
Organization: A kitchen utensil somewhere in central New Jersey

[stuff deleted]
>>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

There is a "good probability" (according to this book) that a given sequence
of n digits in base x will appear somewhere in the expansion of a normal
irrational number (pi is very probably one) within the first x^n digits.
So your googol zeroes are probably in the first googolplex digits.

I read this in _Fractals, Chaos, Power Laws_ by Manfred Schroeder; he makes
reference to these two works in connection with pi:
 
 S. Wagon: "Is pi normal?"  Math. Intelligencer, 7:65-67 (1985).

 V. Klee and S. Wagon: -New and Old Unsolved Problems in Plane Geometry
			and Number Theory- (Mathematical Association of
			America, Washington, DC, 1989).

-- Ross Presser
From: tsingle@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov (Tim Singletary)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: what does the 'RS' in 'RS232' stand for?
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:41:25 GMT
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD

It's not "Radio Shack" or "Real Slow" -- what, if anything, does the
RS (in RS232) stand for?

Someone here suggests "Recommended Standard"; does anyone know the
full story?

tim
--
Tim Singletary, August Automation Inc., (301) 286-8606
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology
From: pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: Proper pronounciation of 'Kibo'
Reply-To: pt@geovision.gvc.com
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:40:05 GMT

bdd@onion.eng.hou.compaq.com (Bruce D. Davis) writes:

>what's the difference between a band of pygmies and a girl's track team???
[very lame punchline deleted]

<<<PLONK>>>

(With extreme prejudice)

-- 
Paul Tomblin, pt@compass.gvc.com
(This is not an official opinion of GeoVision Systems Inc.)
"I don't have time to think it through: I've got to get this code written!"
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:18753 sci.math:17854
From: israel@unixg.ubc.ca (Robert B. Israel)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,sci.math
Subject: Re: Number of numbers (Was Re: PI)
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:43:42 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In <1993Jan8.030055.173@front.se> samuel@front.se writes:

>In article <1993Jan6.062343.27050@sfu.ca>, erick@fraser.sfu.ca (Erick Bryce 
>Wong) writes:

>> This is from the rec.puzzles FAQ :
>> [...]
>> } A theorem of Mahler (1953) states that for all integers p, q > 1,
>> }
>> }               -42
>> } |pi - p/q| > q
>> } 
>> } This says that pi cannot have a rational approximation that is
>> } extremely tight.
>> } 
>> } Now suppose that the computer picks position N.  I know that the next
>> } 41 * N digits cannot be all zero.   For if they were, then the first N
>> } digits, treated as a fraction with denominator 10^N, satisfies:
>> }  
>> } |pi - p / 10^N| < 10^(-42 N)
>> }  
>> } which contradicts Mahler's theorem.

>This was very interesting ! No strings of 10^100 (etc) zeroes in the 
>decimals of PI...

>Now, suppose that you encounter an '1' in place N of the decimal
>expansin of PI. 
>If there would be 42 (or something like that) '1's following the first 
>'1', wouldnt this imply that

>   |pi - p /9*10^(N-1)| < 9^-42 * 10(-42N + 42)

>which also would contradict Mahler's theorem. I don't know if all
>constants etc are correct, but I hope you get the idea of my 'gut
>feeling' about this, which is that there is a limit (42 or something
>determined by the digit itself ?) on how many decimals in a row that
>may be the same digit.
>(Last time I had a 'gut feeling' about PI in this newsgroup, I think
>about 100 pepole explained how wrong I was :-) ) 

If you had M digits d starting at the N'th after the decimal point,
 then for some integer p

|pi - (9 p + d)/(9 x 10^(N-1))| < 10^-(N+M-1)

which contradicts Mahler if M > 42 log_10 9 + 41 N - 41.  Note the
dependence on N.

>Now, IF this is correct, I have a question to all you gurus : 
>Does this imply some other restrictions on what the decimal expansion
>of PI may look like, for example something like "any given sequence of
>N digits may not repeat itself more than M times in a row", where M 
>would be a function of N and the digits themselves.

There will be restrictions, but it is important to note that the M's
will depend on where in the expansion the repetition starts.  So this
does not in any way contradict the hypothesis that pi is normal in
all bases.  In fact almost all real numbers x satisfy stronger conditions:
if a > 2, the number of rationals p/q with |x - p/q| < 1/q^a is finite.
-- 
Robert Israel                            israel@math.ubc.ca
Department of Mathematics             or israel@unixg.ubc.ca
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Y4
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Apple IIGS being discontinued Dec 1992
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:03:16 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1993Jan5.013413.27647@news.columbia.edu> lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>In article <9301040828.27@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>>Just to add sum info to a previous thread:
>>
>>After lengthy discussion on comp.arch and comp.sys.intel, it would
>>appear that the only reason that NeXTStep won't boot on the Cyrix
>>486DLC is probably timing.  It probably won't be fixed as Cyrix is
>>probably not a big concern to NeXT.
>>
>Please elaborate; if you mean some form of time-out phenomenom, then the
>software is defective.

Just remember that this is the first commercial OS package that is meant
to only run on a 486.  It won't run on a 386, as a 386 doesn't have bswap.

There are timing differences, most likely, between the Intel 486 and the
Cyrix 486.  Obviously, the the software is doing something that is timing
dependent when the OS is booting.  I'm sure that NeXT could fix it, but
they probably don't see Cyrix as being part of the big picture.

Also, this is only a theory.  All the published specs ( aside from FPU )
for the Intel 486 and the Cyrix 486 are equal.

The only way to prove or disprove the timing theory is to get an Intel 486
system, Cyrix 486 system, 2 NeXTStep bootdisks, 2 logic analyzers, and do
the usual snapshots.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: bayko@mercury.cs.uregina.ca (John  Bayko)
Subject: Re: Help needed identifying old Intel chips (4004?)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 03:16:29 GMT
Organization: University of Regina, SK, Canada
Keywords: Intel 4004 4002 4001

In article
    <erd.05jd@kumiss.cmhnet.org>
    erd@kumiss.cmhnet.org (Ethan Dicks)
writes:
>I have some chips on a static mat that I have had for as long as I
>can remember.  I almost certainly pulled them from some equipment more
>than 10 years ago.  Here goes with a description...
>
>1)	C4004
>
>2)	C4001  0328
>
>7)	P4002-1
>
>	o Is this *really* an Intel 4004?
>	o What is a 4001 and why would so many of them come from
>	  the same unit?
>	o How rare are 4004 processors?
>	o Is it possible to get specifications for any of these parts?


Here is an official product announcement for the 4004, for anyone
who is interested...


Appearing in IEEE Computer 1972:
-------------------------------

NEW
PRODUCTS

FEATURE PRODUCT

COMPUTER ON A CHIP

   Intel  has  introduced  an  integrated  CPU  complete with
a 4-bit parallel adder, sixteen 4-bit registers, an accumula-
tor  and  a  push-down  stack  on  one  chip.  It's  one of a
family  of  four  new  ICs  which  comprise  the  MCS-4 micro
computer  system--the  first  system  to  bring the power and
flexibility  of  a  dedicated general-purpose computer at low
cost in as few as two dual in-line packages.
    MSC-4   systems   provide  complete  computing  and  con-
trol  functions  for  test  systems,  data terminals, billing
machines,   measuring   systems,   numeric   control  systems
and process control systems.
    The  heart  of  any  MSC-4  system  is  a  Type 4004 CPU,
which  incudes  a  set  of  45  instructions.  Adding  one or
more   Type   4001   ROMs   for   program  storage  and  data
tables   gives  a  fully  functioning  micro-programmed  com-
puter.   Add   Type  4002  RAMs  for  read-write  memory  and
Type 4003 registers to expand the output ports.
   Using  no  circuitry  other  than  ICs from this family of
four,  a  system  with  4096  8-bit  bytes of ROM storage and
5120   bits   of  RAM  storage  can  be  created.  For  rapid
turn-around  or  only  a  few  systems,  Intel's erasable and
re-programmable   ROM,   Type   1701,   may   be  substituted
for the Type 4001 mask-programmed ROM.
    MCS-4   systems  interface  easily  with  switches,  key-
boards,  displays,  teletypewriters,  printers,  readers, A-D
converters   and  other  popular  peripherals.   For  further
information,  circle the reader service card 87 or call Intel
at (408) 246-7501.
              Circle 87 on Reader Service Card

            COMPUTER/JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1971/71


John Bayko.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: kodak@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Jason 'KodaK' Balicki)
Subject: Re: Operating Systems; retrocomputing
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:52:13 GMT

In article <1ik6mcINN27e@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> sarr@sinshan.citi.umich.edu (Sarr J. Blumson) writes:
>On the other hand, I'm not sure what simulating one of these beasts
>would mean.

Point and click on the card holes to program for starters.  :) <- nice
CNN article.  A 'new twist' indeed. :)

>(Sarr Blumson)


--Jason Balicki
kodak@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: sspatter@netcom.com (Samuel Scott Patterson)
Subject: Mass Bus
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:21:48 GMT

'lo.

     anybody out there got any idea what Mass Bus is?  I have a card in
my Unibus PDP-11/34a that has a jack on it and the card is labeled, 
"Mass Bus"  I suspect it's a converter to some other bus format so the 
PDP can use the Mass Bus backplane but what the heck does Mass Bus go to?

							-Spatters
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: What happened to "smart buildings"?  and three tangents
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:53:23 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation

In article <matt-080193191825@wardmac8.med.yale.edu> matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy) writes:
>In article <1ii73pINNkoe@rodan.UU.NET>, avg@rodan.UU.NET (Vadim Antonov)
>wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 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...)
>>
>
>As I recall, there was a famous court case (I think it was
>called "Carterfone vs AT&T" or some such) on this issue.
>
>Bell claimed the burden of proving safety must fall on the
>person connecting something to their lines; since nobody had
>the resources to do this that effectively meant nobody could
>hook non-bell stuff up.  In this court case, the court ruled
>that the burden of proof fell on Bell -- they had to prove
>that the devices in question could damage their equipment.
>
>This decision led to the "interconnect" industry, a lot of
>companies making gizmos for hooking up to phones.
>
    Ma Bell always required that you use a "protective coupler" when
    hooking up to the SWITCHED network.  For quite some time their
    backing on this came from the government.  The basis for this
    was that the public dial network was a strategic resource and
    must be protected from harm.  So if you had a non-Bell
    telephone, modem, autodialler, whatever, you had to buy the
    protective coupler from Bell in order to hook it up.  

    The Leased networks from Bell would allow you to hook up
    non-Bell modems, but they would give you a really rough time on
    service.

    Even today if you hook up to the switched public network there
    are some regulations on what you can and can't do.  Some
    countries have some really horrid conformance tests you must
    pass.
>I understand that in many European countries you still have
>to get telcom's permission to hook up answering machines!

    In some countries you can't hook ANYTHING up to a phone line
    without the telco's permission.  This is slowly changing...but
    devices attached to public dial networks have fairly stringent
    rules on what they must and must not do.

    In this one, I often wish that we would adopt a fairly common
    law in European countries....it is illegal for a computer to
    dial a human!   

>
>Matt Healy
>"I pretend to be a network administrator;
> the lab net pretends to work"
>
>matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
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
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:17:53 GMT

In article <9301050904.10@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Just remember that this is the first commercial OS package that is meant
>to only run on a 486.  It won't run on a 386, as a 386 doesn't have bswap.

Yes, but that's not missing on the Cyrix.

>
>There are timing differences, most likely, between the Intel 486 and the
>Cyrix 486.  Obviously, the the software is doing something that is timing
>dependent when the OS is booting.  I'm sure that NeXT could fix it, but
>they probably don't see Cyrix as being part of the big picture.

Irrelevant.  This industry has a long history of that sort of mistake.  For
years the downfall of programs is assumptions about timeouts derived from
counting cycles.  The only proper way to run any software is to as quickly
as possible stop timing out things, or at least time them out against
known real-time counters.  MS-KERMIT uses the trick of calibrating a loop
that is a trustworthy millisecond against the real-time clock so that it
can be uses later in a reasonable way on any model.  What will NeXTstep do
when an Intel model comes out that violates the "rules" they presume apply?
(I said when, not if.)

>
>Also, this is only a theory.  All the published specs ( aside from FPU )
>for the Intel 486 and the Cyrix 486 are equal.

If that's true, then the software is defective.  An alternate theory is that
there is collusion to use an undocumented instruction that isn't compatibly
implemented, which may be illegal as well as defective.  You shouldn't 
implement code based on the availability of either a useless quirk, or possibly
a specifically known defect.

The NEC V20 is incompatible with the 8088 it replaces.  There are a few
unneeded instruction modes that are different, possibly due to a chip mask
design error.  But the mode is never needed, and virtually all software
runs on either the Intel or NEC chips, other than stuff that goes looking
for the specific quirk.  It would clearly be dirty pool to look for the
specific action of either chip for general-purpose software, since there is
no *useful* difference between them.

>
>The only way to prove or disprove the timing theory is to get an Intel 486
>system, Cyrix 486 system, 2 NeXTStep bootdisks, 2 logic analyzers, and do
>the usual snapshots.

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.)

cjl

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,sci.math