Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Feb 2007 07:29 In article <g8tos21pm8ij4rrpevrpiv2ja8soa2c4f0(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Fri, 09 Feb 07 11:58:00 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>In article <ngins2lb15auhh2u8sicglmmq7seg3p0hf(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>On Thu, 08 Feb 07 12:55:00 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>> >>>> >>>>I would believe that they rewrote the interface between the >>>>OS once called NT and user mode programs. We used these things >>>>UUOs. >>> >>> I don't care what you would believe. >>> >>> I believe that you don't know the history. Nor does the Smithtard >>>apparently. >> >>Honey, I know more about the history than you will ever find out. >> > > Tell us about NT on EISA or NT on a dual CPU machine. That's all new stuff. I'm talking about the source histories before NT. > > How many dual CPU machines have you owned? EISA? We did master/slave implementations in 1971. JMF and TW did the SMP implementation in 1978 with a FCS (first customer ship) in 1979; the production tapes went out in 1980. I have, on my wall, the configuration map of a customer who ran with 5 CPUs. And all this was done before you shat in your first diaper. > > I am on my third dual CPU machine. So little, so late. The biz should have been doing a hundred by now. > > You replies to others indicating that you believed their words about >Windows being a GUI over top of DOS proves you don't know what you >claim you do. I know how those people do their implementations. I also know how some of the individuals work and what they are capable of. I also know how mistreated the most talented are. I have probably forgotten more about the OS biz than you will ever accumulate. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Feb 2007 07:32 In article <eqi0pl$l5i$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eqhnk8$8qk_002(a)s927.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ngins2lb15auhh2u8sicglmmq7seg3p0hf(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>On Thu, 08 Feb 07 12:55:00 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>> >>>> >>>>I would believe that they rewrote the interface between the >>>>OS once called NT and user mode programs. We used these things >>>>UUOs. >>> >>> I don't care what you would believe. >>> >>> I believe that you don't know the history. Nor does the Smithtard >>>apparently. >> >>Honey, I know more about the history than you will ever find out. > >He's just a troll. I'll bet he didn't even hear my post as it went over. > >I'd bet that the same folks that were in on the 432 were involved in the >N10. It had the same sorts of problems with never being able to produce >the performance the paper said it had. > >The N10's pipeline puking may have led the coding clerks at Microsoft not >to worry about the interrupt times. If the CPU burns 20 minutes per >interrupt, there wouldn't be much point. This all has to do with the implementors' (plus the corportate folklore) OS philosophy. And I'm not going to get into this. If you find more out, read backposts in that other newsgroup. I've spent about two years discussing this elsewhere. /BAH
From: Tony Lance on 10 Feb 2007 08:31 Big Bertha Thing mathematics Cosmic Ray Series Possible Real World System Constructs http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/maths.html Access page to 600K ZIP file Astrophysics net ring access site Newsgroup Reviews including sci.physics.particle Postings potentially suitable for fowarding to;- 1.SRF Classical Mathematics 2.SRF Classical Astronomy 13th March 2003 sci.math and sci.astro newsfeeds dropped by university. Onenet UK Astronomy & Space conference feed dropped by university. OUSA Research conference still up, by invitation only. (empty) UK politics internal conference setup next to Net Access Policy (empty bar 3), which was last target of the book-burners. Politics makes poor science. Big Bertha Thing ISP 23rd June 2000 Finance Director, Ision Internet Plc., UK Dear Sir, Further to your letter of the 21st June 2000, regarding payment of 56.36 pounds sterling, for 77 days ISP charges. My last payment of 14.09, as detailed in your letter, covered the three dates as follows;- 1st March 2000 2nd March 2000 13th March 2000 These were the only days of the previous 107 days, when my site was not disabled, in more ways than one and my mailbox locked up from me. Apparently the only person, who can enable site access and password reset, is your accounts manager. He can only be contacted via national telephone lines, complete with revolving door and canned musak. You want a further payment of 56.36, to bring the charges up to 23.48 per day. (At a rate of 8570.20 pounds sterling per annum.) Please find enclosed herewith my cheque for 56.36 and a copy of my previous letter to you, dated 12th June 2000. (recorded delivery) In view of the extraordinary nature of these charges, I would ask you to confirm just three things;- 1.That you have received payment by issueing a reciept. (Received) 2.That you will close my account as from todays date. (Closed 3rd July) 3.That there will be no further charges made against this account. In mitigation of the conduct of your staff, it would appear that they had some difficulty with my Usenet newsgroup postings, as detailed on my new site. http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/news.html I trust that this will be in order and will be looking forward to the favour of your reply. Thank you, Tony Lance judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk
From: Ken Smith on 10 Feb 2007 12:15 In article <eqkdrj$8qk_002(a)s889.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <g8tos21pm8ij4rrpevrpiv2ja8soa2c4f0(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: [....] >> You replies to others indicating that you believed their words about >>Windows being a GUI over top of DOS proves you don't know what you >>claim you do. > >I know how those people do their implementations. I also know how >some of the individuals work and what they are capable of. I also >know how mistreated the most talented are. I have probably forgotten >more about the OS biz than you will ever accumulate. It also seems you know how to get someone's goat. You really are being cruel. :) I think we can trust that he won't go back and reread this thread. The PDP-8E had an interesting sort of OS on it. The OS could have modules installed on the fly in some cases. You had to always have the hard-disk module in place but the paper tape one could be removed and replaced as could a few other custom ones. IIRC they always had to be in field 0. Application programs could span fields but not the OS. The result was that some programs ran almost purely in field 1 and acted like they didn't even know about the fields. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 10 Feb 2007 12:25
In article <eqke00$8qk_003(a)s889.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eqi0pl$l5i$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <eqhnk8$8qk_002(a)s927.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <ngins2lb15auhh2u8sicglmmq7seg3p0hf(a)4ax.com>, >>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>On Thu, 08 Feb 07 12:55:00 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I would believe that they rewrote the interface between the >>>>>OS once called NT and user mode programs. We used these things >>>>>UUOs. >>>> >>>> I don't care what you would believe. >>>> >>>> I believe that you don't know the history. Nor does the Smithtard >>>>apparently. >>> >>>Honey, I know more about the history than you will ever find out. >> >>He's just a troll. I'll bet he didn't even hear my post as it went over. >> >>I'd bet that the same folks that were in on the 432 were involved in the >>N10. It had the same sorts of problems with never being able to produce >>the performance the paper said it had. >> >>The N10's pipeline puking may have led the coding clerks at Microsoft not >>to worry about the interrupt times. If the CPU burns 20 minutes per >>interrupt, there wouldn't be much point. > >This all has to do with the implementors' (plus the corportate >folklore) OS philosophy. And I'm not going to get into this. >If you find more out, read backposts in that other newsgroup. >I've spent about two years discussing this elsewhere. I looked at the N10 for use in a nonOS application and decided against. Like many parts, the first few pages of the data sheet makes it look very good. Only when you get into the dirty details do you start to see the problems. Intel tried to sell the 432 at just about the same time as they tried to sell the 286. It didn't take a genius to notice that N 286s with some overhead would out perform N 432s. The 432 was supposed to do multiprocessor systems efficiently but it failed badly. I think there must have been a group of people at Intel working on the 432 and that this was seen as the future. The X86 series was supposed to just keep the market from running away while they designed it. The X86 ended up with so many bad ideas in it because the real brains were being wasted on the 432 project. IMO The best processor line Intel introduced was the 8051. It is too bad that they didn't think to extend it in the obvious ways. Others have now taken up the lead on that. > >/BAH > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |