The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: krw on 2 Apr 2007 12:03 In article <cde11354m4g8i66f255ff4q38r46orqh0n(a)4ax.com>, Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid says... > On 29 Mar 2007 18:11:18 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, > nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote: > > > > >In article <MPG.2075a1a27f7217af98a25a(a)news.individual.net>, > >krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: > >|> > >|> > Of course. IIRC, IBM had a crisis in the 80s(?); the reason it > >|> > survived that one was due to having enough money to carry them > >|> > through. > >|> > > >|> The '70s were pretty bad. I remember walking out to the P'ok > >|> production floor and seeing only one or two processors in final test > >|> with "Departent of Agriculture" (going to a three-letter government > >|> agency, sure) in the '70s. The 303x came out in '80 and things were > >|> hopping around P'ok, at least, for the next decade. > > > >That was a bit misleading. IBM was outsourcing quite a lot of its > >actual production by then - to places like Glasgow (if I recall), > >though still IBM subsidiaries. > > Havant (UK) and Yasu (Japan) for 3033; Boeblingen for some 4300 > processors: Greenock was only ever terminals (maybe later some kind of > PC) AFAIR. Peripherals were pretty widespread. > Moving production to your own facilities in other countries isn't what I would call "outsourcing". -- Keith
From: kenney on 2 Apr 2007 13:48 In article <460fbf13$0$336$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl>, toon(a)moene.indiv.nluug.nl (Toon Moene) wrote: > while my Exidy Sorcerer (with a 2 > Mhz Z80) did all these undocumented opcodes just fine (bought Dec. > 80, used until late '83). My Video Geni was fine with them but the documented calls did all I needed and the assembler understood them which was more than it did for the undocumented ones. Ken Young
From: Nick Maclaren on 2 Apr 2007 13:58 In article <MPG.207af349183b2ac98a2a0(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: |> In article <cde11354m4g8i66f255ff4q38r46orqh0n(a)4ax.com>, |> Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid says... |> > On 29 Mar 2007 18:11:18 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, |> > nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote: |> > >In article <MPG.2075a1a27f7217af98a25a(a)news.individual.net>, |> > >krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: |> > >|> |> > >|> > Of course. IIRC, IBM had a crisis in the 80s(?); the reason it |> > >|> > survived that one was due to having enough money to carry them |> > >|> > through. |> > >|> > |> > >|> The '70s were pretty bad. I remember walking out to the P'ok |> > >|> production floor and seeing only one or two processors in final test |> > >|> with "Departent of Agriculture" (going to a three-letter government |> > >|> agency, sure) in the '70s. The 303x came out in '80 and things were |> > >|> hopping around P'ok, at least, for the next decade. |> > > |> > >That was a bit misleading. IBM was outsourcing quite a lot of its |> > >actual production by then - to places like Glasgow (if I recall), |> > >though still IBM subsidiaries. |> > |> > Havant (UK) and Yasu (Japan) for 3033; Boeblingen for some 4300 |> > processors: Greenock was only ever terminals (maybe later some kind of |> > PC) AFAIR. Peripherals were pretty widespread. |> > |> Moving production to your own facilities in other countries isn't |> what I would call "outsourcing". Fine. That is irrelevant to my point. The fact that Poughkeepsie was near-idle is not proof that IBM wasn't selling systems. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: krw on 2 Apr 2007 14:21 In article <eurg8u$rer$1(a)gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk says... > > In article <MPG.207af349183b2ac98a2a0(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: > |> In article <cde11354m4g8i66f255ff4q38r46orqh0n(a)4ax.com>, > |> Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid says... > |> > On 29 Mar 2007 18:11:18 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, > |> > nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote: > |> > >In article <MPG.2075a1a27f7217af98a25a(a)news.individual.net>, > |> > >krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: > |> > >|> > |> > >|> > Of course. IIRC, IBM had a crisis in the 80s(?); the reason it > |> > >|> > survived that one was due to having enough money to carry them > |> > >|> > through. > |> > >|> > > |> > >|> The '70s were pretty bad. I remember walking out to the P'ok > |> > >|> production floor and seeing only one or two processors in final test > |> > >|> with "Departent of Agriculture" (going to a three-letter government > |> > >|> agency, sure) in the '70s. The 303x came out in '80 and things were > |> > >|> hopping around P'ok, at least, for the next decade. > |> > > > |> > >That was a bit misleading. IBM was outsourcing quite a lot of its > |> > >actual production by then - to places like Glasgow (if I recall), > |> > >though still IBM subsidiaries. > |> > > |> > Havant (UK) and Yasu (Japan) for 3033; Boeblingen for some 4300 > |> > processors: Greenock was only ever terminals (maybe later some kind of > |> > PC) AFAIR. Peripherals were pretty widespread. > |> > > |> Moving production to your own facilities in other countries isn't > |> what I would call "outsourcing". > > Fine. That is irrelevant to my point. The fact that Poughkeepsie was > near-idle is not proof that IBM wasn't selling systems. I'm not sure when Havant, Yasu, and Boeb (there was one in S. America too, IIRC) came on-line. I believe it was during the 3033 ramp. I was talking about before, I.e. 3168. The fact is that the economy sucked in the '70s and IBM was feeling it. Hard. -- Keith
From: Walter Bushell on 2 Apr 2007 14:51
In article <MPG.207af1c58caebfc498a29f(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > In article <a082135mvbkatdo80f6fm2cs4kgt5t8kpf(a)4ax.com>, > mccoyf(a)millcomm.com says... > > In alt.folklore.computers Brian Inglis > > <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: > > > > >Buffer overflow is a bug caused by amateurs masquerading as programmers. > > > > ... Or deliberately caused by hackers trying to break a system. > > No, if there wasn't a loose nut behind the original keyboard the > hacker wouldn't have a chance at a buffer overflow. The fact that it > *can* be overflowed shows a poor design. Could be bad design or bad implementation. It's something an applications programmer should not have to worry about. The more things that a programmer has to concentrate on the more things elude attention. |