A Thing On A Thing

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 2 Nov 2003 3:38 pm

I just got this dialog

</center>

Bill Llewellyn · Post by **Bill Llewellyn** » 2 Nov 2003 6:03 pm

b0b,

Interesting.

My solution to the Windows dillema:

------------------
Bill, steelin' since '99 | Steel page | My music | Steelers' birthdays | Over 50?

[This message was edited by Bill Llewellyn on 02 November 2003 at 06:04 PM.]

Rich Paton · Post by **Rich Paton** » 17 Nov 2003 2:52 am

b0b, thanks for the reply. I'm sure Randy has a real gift in achieving a certain tone from a design. That's what really matters, right?
Think back to the CBS'ed Fender Amps; who if anyone listened to them at CBS? Or had a clue what to have them sound like?

Bob Lawrence · Post by **Bob Lawrence** » 18 Nov 2003 6:46 pm

More Trivia to support AL and B0b:

The "Microsoft Disk Operating System" or MS-DOS was based on QDOS, the "Quick and Dirty Operating System" written by Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products, for their prototype Intel 8086 based computer.

QDOS was based on Gary Kildall's CP/M, Paterson had bought a CP/M manual and used it as the basis to write his operating system in six weeks, QDOS was different enough from CP/M to be considered legal.

Microsoft bought the rights to QDOS for $50,000, keeping the IBM deal a secret from Seattle Computer Products.

------------------

Mark Ardito · Post by **Mark Ardito** » 18 Nov 2003 8:04 pm

I always thought that DOS was a rip off of UNIX. DOS commands are sooooo close to UNIX commands.

Mark

------------------
Sho~Bud Pro I, Fender D-8 (C6&E13) http://www.darkmagneto.com

[This message was edited by Mark Ardito on 18 November 2003 at 08:05 PM.]

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 19 Nov 2003 12:22 pm

Not really, Mark. The Unix shell programs (csh, bash, ksh, etc.) serve the same function as DOS's COMMAND.COM, but they are much more powerful at processing syntax. Also, many of the things that are built into COMMAND.COM are external to a Unix shell.

For example, COPY is a DOS command that's part of COMMAND.COM. A Unix shell invokes the cp program to do copying.

COMMAND.COM evolved directly from CP/M 2.2, which had no Unix heritage. MS-DOS did borrow two significant concepts from Unix, though: file directories and file handles.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax

Ray Minich · Post by **Ray Minich** » 19 Nov 2003 3:52 pm

It's really kinda funny, and I dont know if it's funny ha-ha or funny peculiar, but, if you look at the X-Windows (Unix) programming syntax, and then at the Microsoft Windows programming syntax, you'll find function names that are very similar indeed.

I started programming with the IBM 1130 in 1971. Fortran & Assembler. 8K of core, 512Kbytes on Hard disk, and the 1130 was as big as two Caddilacs with CPU, Card reader, Line Printer, Tape drive (and don't forget the card sorter). Fond memories of the infamous 1H1 loop.

I met computers before I found out about girls, and, I think the computers were (are) easier to deal with. Computers just say "that didn't work, try again", not "That didn't work STUPID!".

Microsoft is the 9000 lb gorilla. If they want your stuff they take it. Confidentiality agreements are meaningless. Just ask Symantec/Norton. How do you think they got "defrag"?

The driving force behind the developments in computational methods that preceeded the PC era were codebreaking algorithms and system designs to support ever faster processing. IBM, Amdahl, Cray all designed bigger, faster machines to support the NSA. Business was the benefactor of their efforts.

It's kinda ironic that since the PC era began, the primary motivation to make bigger faster PC's has been to support the PC game industry.

The true heroes of the computer age are for the most part unsung and unknown. They are the ones that first conceived the fundamental principles upon which today's modern operating systems are based. Multitasking, Multiprocessing, Virtual Memory, Cacheing, Disk storage, all started out as an engineer, scientist, or student (graduate student) with an idea. Most persons have no idea the "shoulders of giants" they are standing on when they turn on a PC.

It's a shame that many users feel frustrated and angry with the hassles of dealing with the PC. It's a complex animal. Sometimes it's a wonder that the damn thing even works at all, there are so many things that can screw up. The amount of things that are happening in the box just to open a web page are phenomenal. When it works it's great. When it doesn't it's frustrating and annoying.

I do real time systems design and programming, both in WinTel and Linux/Unix. If you wanna see some real hairy details check out http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~valvano/index.html
for some interesting "real time" programming material. John Valvano is a real wizard.

When you sit down to your high speed internet connection or 56K baud dial up connection remember that all of the telemetry from the moonshots was communicated from all over the world to Johnson Space Center at 2400 baud (Bisync Comm).

BTW, there was a "heartwarming" little article that appeared in one of my trade magazines in the last year that is of interest to the analog/tube world. The article basically stated that the 2.4 gHz and up PC's may become junk after 3 years of use. Seems the vias (current carrying pathways etched into the silicon) are so tiny now that they're gonna suffer from electron erosion. Gonna be interesting to see if this comes true. Hang on to those old 800 mHz PC's after all.

Dekley S-10, Emmons SD-10, NV400