Raffzahn

general recent conversations

Discussion on question by Eric: What …

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Apr 22 13:31

@Eric I don'T think so - at least not if you're not thruout familiar - not just with windows, but the whole system. Embedded systems are purpose designed systems. Them using standard parts doesn't make it more standard than a Wiesel tankett being a car just because it uses a modified VW engine.

Raffzahn

Apr 22 13:31

@Eric The PC is not a 'regular Computer' but an embedded system. It's part of that machine. PC hardware is embedded in many devices, fare machines, ATMs or CNC like here. Its Windows may differ from desktop Windows. Windows comes in many flavours. It was one of the main design features of NT to be configurable for many uses including real time embedded. Version may miss features of consumer XP and/or contain additional ones - including on kernel level. Booting different and including special hardware are strong hints for everyone not familiar with exactly this one to keep hands off.

Raffzahn

Apr 22 13:31

@Eric what machine? Mind you, this machine does not sound like one everyone knows. Also, according to your own description this Windows seems to be an integral part of that machine, especially configured by the manufacturer different from standard operation to make it fit in with that apparatus - a fitting which you seem to have fiddled with. Aka tried to hack.

Raffzahn

Apr 22 13:31

What please is a Biesse? Also, Im not really sure if RC.SE is the right place to support your professional machinery setup, or hack around the device.

Discussion on question by Arbel Grosh…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Apr 18 12:50

@ArbelGroshaus rather of being way too wide and mundane at the same time. There were countless machines and methods they offered. Any somewhat basic answer would need as much examples and variations, thus requesting a lot of work with little to gain. Further more there are a a truck load of videos out there showing exactly that (just the very first that came up searching).

Raffzahn

Apr 18 12:50

Keep in mind that c) depends much on your value for $OS. Especially early ones had often just a few hundret bytes to a few KiB.

Discussion on question by chx: What w…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Apr 18 12:49

@user1937198 except that BASIC was as well originally punch card feed :)) Also, when testing a program you already remove yourself from the editor, as now that program takes the interface (pre windowing at least :)). Or take embedded development. Isn't the arduino IDE still an IDE, despite that for trying out the result one has to "remove one from the editor" and interact with the little guy? If single interface is the keyword, then no IDE for embedded development can exist. Same for cross platform development. Isn't it? That argument doesn't compute.

Raffzahn

Apr 18 12:49

@user1937198 (Compiler or Interpreter doesn't really change anything. They are just technology to impement the source to execution interface of a language. More important your first comment ("if you are working out all your changes offline separate from the computer, [...], then that is inherently separate") Can not see the separation here. That is, unless you assume an editor function which is not mentioned in the question: Automated handling of compile result (errors) by the editor - e.g. positioning to lines that have been marked by the compiler without needing to enter line numbers.

Raffzahn

Apr 18 12:49

@TomasBy This is written to repeat a certain impression, not really to give a fully thought thru historic correct description. It's always helpful to keep in mind that Wiki is for most parts not a well curated encyclopedia, but the handmade equivalent of what today is called KI. It collects an averaged view of a topic, not an expert one. Given, being made by selected humans (those pressed to give citation) the quality is usually higher than ChatGPT at. al. Heck, we should know best when looking what crap often creeps up in (home) computer articles: assumptions on fan level and in hindsight.

Raffzahn

Apr 18 12:49

@user1937198 True points. except for the last ("Why would you need a program that integrated editing and running, when they were completely seperate steps of the workflow?"). For one, It's not just editing and running - in fact, running isn't really the point of an IDE. IDE is about seamless workflow of development tools, most prominent compiler and debugger. Second, they still stay separate steps even in an IDE - one still will press some key or klick a menu/buttonitem

Discussion on question by Lundin: Did…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Feb 28 18:14

@dave Erm, the /360 interrupt behaviour is an optional feature, usually NOT enabled.

Discussion on question by Schilive: W…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Feb 24 14:42

@user3528438 Not to mention that processing was still done using punch card command input. After all, production is rather static. There is no need to 'pick' directories (what's that anyway) or files in some screen dialogue. Disk assignment is don by an operator, the rest is automated.

Raffzahn

Feb 24 14:42

@ThorbjørnRavnAndersen No, they do not. Early ones were pure TTL. Think Datapoint or DEC VT05. Very early ones even predate TTL.. Likewise is 'affordable' not really a useful criteria as it fully depends on use case. Early 1970 mainframe terminals had a price tag of a Mercedes, still companies did afford buying them in large numbers.

Raffzahn

Feb 24 14:42

This is at the same time weak defined (what is a CRT and when does it qualify - after all, CRT are older than electronic computers) and way to broad (like what should "common" mean? Common with certain types of systems (mainframe, mini, micro)? Common within what user group (data entry, scientific, general public)?Or common at what level of usage within a use case?). With all of this any answer between 1948 (Manchester Baby) and NEVER (as there as nevera majority of humans owning/using a (computer) CRT). So please, try to qualify - if that's possible at all.

Discussion on answer by Raffzahn: Did…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Feb 17 22:49

@supercat That was usually done by each record carrying a primary identifier (here for example the SSN) plus a mandatory record type. Usually with the main record marked as space or A (note, numbers come after letters in EBCDIC). That way any data card stack can be selected and reordered using ubiquitous mechanical sorters - or via SORTIN, meaning the card stack will be read by SORT and written into a file which then will be presented to the application as reading cards again :)

Raffzahn

Feb 17 22:49

@pipe Exactly that. Id you'd ever had worked in classic EDP you'd know how it's handled.

Raffzahn

Feb 17 22:49

@jcaron It also means more program code for encoding/decoding. A plain 3 character decimal can be converted by a single instruction (PACK) into BCD, from there straight add (AP) and edit (ED) to prepare any report/display. The single digit month (A..L) can be as well translated by a single instruction into a month, while the day just needs a move. Remember, code space (and run time) was as rare as storage. Not to mention that such encoding would be plain readable to any operator picking a punch card - as in 150B16 for today (2025/02/16). Never make a solution more simple than needed.

Raffzahn

Feb 17 22:49

@chthon In what relation? Sure, it was a major demonstration of data processing, but otherwise not related. Usage and enabling technology had advanced way beyond simply counting holes by 1935.

Raffzahn

Feb 17 22:49

@StephenPAdams Beside that those Standards are WAY younger than anything this is about, the data is only shown as what a date is when referring to a point in time. Standard documents are written to include all reference needed - here what it means to tie a date-notation to a point in time. This might sound trivial, but trivial is not a consideration to leave out information for understanding. The date of the meter convention being chosen is a random one. It comes naturally as that convention is the origin of modern standards, thus the origin of ISO.

Raffzahn

Feb 17 22:49

@Luatic It is simply how e did data back then (being in hat business since the 1970, I've seen more of those ask specific data rules one can imagine). Also, and more to the point explanation will be either insufficient ('is about the data structure') for anyone, or include the word COBOL whole being too complex to be repeated, thus shortened after an iteration or two to 'Because COBOL'. Been there done that. The world is not made of computer nerds, but people with other orientation and preferences. Not to mention 140 character style messages.

Discussion on answer by Raffzahn: How…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Feb 14 11:00

@JohnDoty Well, yes, that memory is that's exactly the same point as with a Apple II or CP/M. if one's sales pitch is to sell software that needs a lot of memory to customers having machines not made to provide for that memory, the complaints are rather pointless. It's exactly that why they earned so much money: Selling baggage racks for VW Bugs...

Raffzahn

Feb 14 11:00

@JohnDoty Regarding x86 and workstations you seem fall for the same fase comparison between workstation and IBM's PC. Kind of comparing an Apple II with some workstation doesn't work either. There have been quite some incredible, fast and successful x86 workstations. Like the 1982 PC-X, an 8 MHz 80186 Unix workstation. Literally running circles around an Apollo DN100 or Sun-1. We had all three in office at the time for evaluation. (also considerable cheaper, despite carrying a Siemens price tag)

Raffzahn

Feb 14 11:00

@JohnDoty Not really sure what (dis)agreement. Also, note that Mr. Sachs comment seems to be about PC memory design, not the CPU segmentation. In case of Lotus it's safe to assume that this comment is not even about the PC itself, but LIM/EMS, a banked memory extension scheme developed by Lotus. Accessing more memory than the CPU can naturally address is always painful - and not related to segmentation. In fact, it's CPU agnostic. It hurts the very same, no matter if Apple II >48 KiB (was even worse than LIM) or any CP/M 3.0 >64 KiB.

Raffzahn

Feb 14 11:00

@MichaelGraf as in raw computing power. It always works (mostly) linear with RAM bandwith. x86 features quite compact code (nicely shown inthis paper comparing architectures from 6502 all the way to mainframe. Here 386 code is always more compact as 68k (remember, CPU spend more time reading code than data). At the same time the x86 bus interface is better in utilising bandwidth due code prefetch. A classic Doppelwumms :) x86 workstations aways outperformed 68k. The 2000s even allowed cheap ass consumer PC to do as well.

Raffzahn

Feb 14 11:00

@lvd Sounds like comparing apples to oranges. Usage of DOS (based) systems as user requirement hampering performance isn't an issue of CPU structure - nor is platform design (IBM-PC). Not to mention most people in PCs back then buying a generation or two behind development. I

Discussion on question by Miss Unders…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Feb 12 08:35

@dave Not sure what 'simple minded segmentation' vs 'structural segmentation' is meant to say.

Raffzahn

Feb 12 08:35

@davidbak There was no real difference with Assembler compared to C or Pascal. One simply defined memory model and segments(as with any other CPU) and let the Assembler/linker do the rest. After all, compilers did exactly the same.

Discussion on question by cjs: Were C…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Nov 20, 2024 09:01

@cjs No, only my memory, that's why it's a comment not an Answer. Now, somehow you contradict yourself in a single sentence. I would think that DR is the one authority, and they call either Version CP/M, don't they? So DR selling with a BOOT/TBASE at 4200h call it CP/M, it would think they are right. I wouldn't dare to call it any other. Also, the mentioned relocation and redirection is exactly what makes the ABI work for applications not compiled for different BOOT/TBASE, isn't it?

Raffzahn

Nov 20, 2024 09:01

@cjs Well, aren't you notorious for promoting after market solutions as answer? SCNR. Serious, this isn't an either/or issue, thus your argument doesn't stick. Of course will applications compiled for that system use BOOT/TBASE at 4200h/4300h. But redirecting vectors is what's usually done to make applications compiled for standard 0h/100h able to run after relocation. Point is also why those 200h are reserved. Finally, I wouldn't go as far as calling location of BOOT/TBASE as the single defining feature of CP/M. Otherwise neither CP/M-86nor CP/M-68 would be CP/M.

Raffzahn

Nov 20, 2024 09:01

@cjs That's exactly what "whatever the ROM needed to redirect" means. People went great length to get CP/M running on many less standard configurations. System documentation is rather often just a recommendation.

Raffzahn

Nov 20, 2024 09:01

@tofro Well, yes and no. While they need to be relocated to TBASE, they may not need to be recompiled - at least not as long as the restart vectors are redirected (IIRC that's also what the area below BASE was intended for - having a safe space to convert whatever the ROM needed to redirect restart handling.)

Discussion on question by Paul J. Luc…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Oct 14, 2024 16:39

@PaulJ.Lucas Also, pls. note, I din't vote for closure/move. I'm always amazed what pearls of wisdom RC.SE user do find - and wouldn't mind an answer bringing some historic context as well. Beside it being borderline, I firmly believe that a more language (theory) focused audience may be a way better source for a reasonable explanation of pro and con of the decision made for the struct keyword.

Raffzahn

Oct 14, 2024 16:39

@PaulJ.Lucas I think I didn't imply carelessness. RC.SE is being kind of perpendicular to all computer topics, isn't it? So there's quite some wiggling room mostly by the way a topic is looked at. In this case it seems being about use of name spaces (and marking them), something clearly a design choice for the language in addition you're asking explicit for the rational behind, which means the why that decision makes sense. That's clearly not a historical perspective, but a language design question. Wouldn't you agree that any answer is most likely one of language theory, not heritage?

Raffzahn

Oct 14, 2024 16:39

Not sure, if this is really an RC.SE question as to me it's way more of a Langdef one, asking for the why in context of language design, doesn't it?

Discussion on question by Vikki: How …

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Oct 6, 2024 19:14

@Vikki Going into detail is usually quite appreciated - but it needs to be detail related to the problem at hand. In this case so related to win95 and it's user handling.

Raffzahn

Oct 6, 2024 19:11

@Vikki Erm. It might be helpful to take a step back. This isn't about trans, cis or whatever, but a technical issue relevant to anyone using windows 95. The same issue will arrise with any question covering a small question under 20 times non related talk.

Raffzahn

Oct 6, 2024 19:09

@wizzwizz4 The answer works perfect without. The part about installation is a bonus bit. One that should be added anyway.

Raffzahn

Oct 6, 2024 19:02

Why? the original question explicitly excluded reinstallation.

Raffzahn

Oct 6, 2024 19:02

@wizzwizz4 Not really. Unless the information is needed for the answer, we need to act preventive on such issues. Or can you guarantee to catch every cache, copy or citation of that question?

Raffzahn

Oct 6, 2024 18:28

@wizzwizz4 regarding the VM part, mind to tell explain how this is relevant for the question? Binding Namechance to VM puts up a connection that might not (most likely does not) exist. If at all, it might be useful in an update if the presented solution does not work. Otherwise it's misleading.

Raffzahn

Oct 6, 2024 18:24

No it is not. For this question it doesn't matter why. It's not as if there are other things we could do if we know the why. Sure, there is a class of questions where the OP asks for a specific solution to a problem, where others may archive the same goal as well. This is not one of those questions. There is no doubt about goal and no preference for a way that could be challenged.

Would make a difference for anyone answering or reading later on if that change is because of no longer liking the name, needing a different structure to fit a company policy or because it was a silly name? I'd …

Raffzahn

Oct 6, 2024 13:30

Bottom line, I strongly recommend to have the edit reinstalled. Or delete the whole question as off topic. That 'microblogging' is in no way relevant for the question asked and especially not helpful for any later reader having the same issue. With all the chattiness on RC.SE, we need to keep readers in focus.

Raffzahn

Oct 6, 2024 13:28

@Greenonline Not really. a TLDR section to add random non related information is rarely a good idea for a question, even less here. RC.SE is like any other SE about asking questions, not writing a blog. If the OP want's to get rid of his thought she'll need to install Wordpress or use Twitter, not writing a (not well sorted) Blogpost camouflaged as question.

Raffzahn

Oct 6, 2024 13:24

A) Well, to be honest, I skipped that question. I'm mot into Win 97 and even less somethign like users under such a system. Seeing the edit I was a bit confused at first, cutting off that much is strange, but reading it, it became clear that it's more of a non edited story of life than a question. Since it's no good idea to guess missing parts it's best to just cut it down to the core, so I approved.

B) Regarding 'we don't do that' I would think it's _very_ important to distinguish between questions and Answers. Yes, we appreciate additional background information (to some degree), especia…

The BBS

General discussion for retrocomputing.stackexchange.com

Raffzahn

Sep 29, 2024 22:46

Nice. Somebody had to try that one day :)) But beside being rather obscure, what would you want to ask? You've figured it out already.

Discussion on answer by Raffzahn: Why…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Sep 14, 2024 08:52

@MarkDominus As described in footnote (2), APL grew out of a documentation notation used by IBM at least as early as 1962 by the team defining the IBM /360 architecture. So well within time for the 1963 ASCII.

Raffzahn

Sep 14, 2024 08:52

@MarkDominus Let's just delete all of that as I think we have worked it out.

Discussion on question by Leo B.: Whi…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Aug 29, 2024 23:16

@LeoB. Now that's a nice wording. lovely.

Raffzahn

Aug 29, 2024 21:26

@JeremyP Jup, true, that 'can' prat is important. And only resolved when looking at a specific implementation. But so is notation moot point. There are languages where array(y,x) and array(y)(x) are alternate ways to address the same element, so neither can be used as indicator what a 'real' multidimensional array is.

Discussion on question by qwr: Which …

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...

Raffzahn

Aug 3, 2024 11:10

@AlexCannon Well, Assembler can do most/all of that - after all, any serious assembler is based on/ capable of macros - by implementing/using a string/array type. Keep in mind, language features are more often than not runtime/library based additions. Capable Assemblers are around since at least the mid 1960s.. In ASSEMBF one could write (already without macros) STRING+L'STRING-1 to access teh last element of a string (or array for that matter - which would even adjust according to basic data type - string beeing just the application of byte).