date:20160708

On 8 July 2016 at 04:33, Rod Smallwood  wrote:
> Ho Hum I ask understanding for seniors memory.


:-)

WordStar commands are still used in some things, such as JOE.

However, they went away before the GUI era and are mostly now
forgotten. Including by you! ;-)

WordPerfect replaced WordStar on DOS. It was a lot more capable and it
had superb printer-driver support.

Then Windows (and MacOS and GUIs in general) swept WordPerfect away.
The printer drivers issue became irrelevant when the OS handled the
printers and font rendering etc., and most users much preferred the
GUI model of text-editing to the WordPerfect embedded-control-codes
model.

Interestingly, more things seem to understand the Vi keystrokes now,
at least on Unix.

Although I'm something of an old-timer too, dating from before the PC
era and learning CP/M and VAX-VMS before I ever set hands on an IBM
anything.

I cordially dislike both Vi & Emacs: I grew up with keyboards with
cursor and delete keys, but they didn't have META or SUPER or any of
that guff.

I disliked WordStar (which I found arcane and clunky even when it was
still current and on retail sale), WordPerfect (all function-keys all
the time, needed a keyboard template or eidetic memory). I also knew
and supported MultiMate, DisplayWrite, MS Word for DOS and others. I
used LocoScript at home, which replaced The Last Word on my ZX
Spectrum.

I admit I liked LocoScript but it had the benefit of a dedicated
keyboard intended for a word-processor. MS Word was my favourite DOS
wordprocessor -- even before CUA, I found its menu structure and
editing keystrokes (select a block, _then_ format it) logical. And it
could do WYSIWYG *bold* and _underline_ and /italic/ on screen, even
on a PC text display.

But when I got my hands on early Macs and Windows 2 in my first job, I
discovered the CUA model, and I've liked it ever since. I still miss
CUA editing on the Linux command line.

There are some: http://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/42908.html

... But they're all nonstandard, not widely supported or have restrictions.

Anyway. the keystrokes you describe are the now-ubiquitous, on GUIs at
least, CUA keystrokes -- in their later incarnation, with some
cross-fertilisation from the Mac HCI guidelines. Everyone follows them
and I think that's a really good thing.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)

Re: HP 8510 network analyser

2016-07-08 Thread Paul Koning

> On Jul 8, 2016, at 12:15 AM, Brent Hilpert  wrote:
> 
> So a friend tells me there's a maybe-abandoned HP 8510 Network Analyzer in 
> the hallway of the engineering building of the univ. he works at.
> I presume it's a unit like this, as he says it's over a metre tall:
>   http://www.ece.lsu.edu/emdl/facilities/network%20analyser.html
> 
> I figure its a little too far large and too far away from my needs to take it 
> on, but out of curiousity does anyone know offhand what processor they used 
> in these?
> (I haven't looked in depth online).
> Cursory guess is its mid-90s technology.

That sounds right.  I have an HP catalog from 1993, which lists very similar 
bits, an 8510 display unit and the 8515 and 8517 S-parameter test sets.  So I'd 
guess this is a slightly later followup model.   List price of that day, FYA, 
$36500 for the 8510C, and $41400 for the 8515A (slightly more for the 8517 due 
to the higher top frequency).

Something that's going to be obvious to some but possibly not to all: "network 
analyzer" is short for "vector network analyzer", an electronic component 
measuring device.  It has nothing to do with computer data networks.

paul

BASIC challenge on RetroBattlestations

2016-07-08 Thread Chris Osborn

July is BASIC Month and there's another challenge happening on 
RetroBattlestations. The type-in program for this challenge borrows a little 
bit of code from the very first BASIC challenge that I did. I've created a 
little "turtle graphics" type program that uses a stack based command 
interpreter. Right now the commands are very simple, pen up & down, move 
forward and turn. There's also looping to make it easy to create that 
spirograph effect that everyone loves to do!

This time around there's more than just the random winners for typing in the 
program as-is. I'll also be choosing two people who can add the most 
interesting features or port it to the most exotic hardware. So far there are 
not too many platforms that have been ported to, and the only features that 
anyone has added has just been random colorization.

You can check it out here:

  https://redd.it/4qs0f3

--
Follow me on twitter: @FozzTexx
Check out my blog: http://insentricity.com

Re: Fwd: Re: Front Panels - New development - Bezels

2016-07-08 Thread Pontus Pihlgren

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 01:18:45PM +0100, Rod Smallwood wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/07/2016 07:14, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 07:47:32PM +0100, Rod Smallwood wrote:
> >>
> >>On 07/07/2016 19:11, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
> >>>On 7/7/2016 3:02 AM, Rod Smallwood wrote:
> 
> 
>  Forwarded Message 
> Subject: Re: Front Panels - New development - Bezels
> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:01:35 +0100
> From: Rod Smallwood 
> To: Paul Birkel 
> 
> 
> 
> On 07/07/2016 07:18, Paul Birkel wrote:
> >"MakeAnEight", oh my :->.  Next it will be "SweetSixteen" I imagine.
> >
> >Great news on the casting-in-resin prototype.  How much are these
> >ending up costing?
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rod
> >Smallwood
> >Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 2:04 AM
> >To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> >Subject: Front Panels - New development - Bezels
> >
> >Hi Guys
> >
> >   We are able to-announce the successful test production
> >of a PDP-8 Bezel in cast resin.
> >
> >  The result is tough, beige colored, slightly flexible
> >copy of the original.
> >
> >  Bonding the panel to the bezel or adding internal
> >stiffening brings rigidity.
> >
> >  Painting matches the color.
> >
> >  This will be part of our MakeAnEight parts for
> >reproduction or repair range.
> >
> >
> >  Rod (Panelman) Smallwood
> >
> >
> >
> Hi Paul
>  Well I was going to call it ElevenHeaven but I like
> your idea better.
> 
> They got a good result first time.  That seemed too easy. Then I
> remembered
> that when I went through the molding and casting process they said is
> that it?
> 
> It just dawned on me. Screen printing is all about handling gloopy
> liquids.
> They have all of the knowledge of mixing and all of the measuring pots
> and
> stirring sticks you will ever need.
> 
> Cost? Well that's interesting.
> Usually in a small run/custom situation its the labor cost that's the
> major element.
> Here it seems to be the cost of the materials to get the right result. I
> should know soon.
> 
> Regards Rod
> 
> 
> >>>I would stick with the "ElevenHeaven" since that indicates a PDP-11.  The
> >>>Sixteen
> >>>refers to the bits, I know, but there were a lot of 16-bit-ers out there
> >>>and only
> >>>one Eleven!
> >>>
> >>>BTW, I'm looking forward to your getting to the PDP-11 series, especially
> >>>an 11/70
> >>>panel and bezel.
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>   John H. Reinhardt
> >>Ok Thanks
> >> Plan is to complete the PDP-8/i and then do the 8/L
> >>
> >>Next up will be the much requested ElevenHeaven range.
> >>As the 11/70 is the headline system we could start there.
> >>Panels first, bezel to follow.
> >>
> >>Longer term goal is a full size operating replica that  is difficult (at
> >>least externally) to tell from the original.
> >>
> >Is there a way to tell your replicas from the originals? Given the prices
> >of some original panels it would be nice to be able to identify a
> >"counterfeit" one.
> >
> >Now, I am i no way against what you are doing I think it i great but I'm
> >honestly conserned that these will pop up on ebay in the future as the real
> >thing.
> >
> >/P
>  Well I could say ours are better. However I'm going to get a number burned
> into the plexiglass.
> An easy way to tell is to look at the cutouts. Ours are laser cut and
> perfectly straight, sharp and square.
> The originals have tool marks and are a bit rounded in the corners by the
> router.
> 
> Regards  Rod
> 
> 


Thank you, good enough.


/P

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
> WordStar commands are still used in some things, such as JOE.

You are right and I use Joe daily, hmm, more like hourly. I'm typing this 
message in it, right now, in fact. It's my $EDITOR and default composition 
editor in Alpine, my go-to mail client.

> However, they went away before the GUI era and are mostly now forgotten. 
> Including by you! ;-)

Some of us perhaps, but after writing a few hundred thousand lines of code 
in Borland IDEs in the 1990s, I couldn't forget the keystrokes if I wanted 
to, I think.

> WordPerfect replaced WordStar on DOS. It was a lot more capable and it 
> had superb printer-driver support.

I liked both of them. The coolest thing about Wordperfect was how they 
actually paid attention to the fact that white text on a blue background 
was supposedly easier on ones eyes. I believe there was some kind of 
research into this, but I'm not sure if it was the by Wordperfect Corp.

> Then Windows (and MacOS and GUIs in general) swept WordPerfect away.

My recollection of that time was that, as soon as the unwashed masses saw 
that GUIs were going to be the norm on microcomputers, they were 
well-past-done with anything character based. I don't actually see that as 
100% positive progress, though. I see it as emblematic of how "users" see 
computers, with both good and bad implications. Greater accessibility 
means more overall benefit to more people, and that's a good thing. 
However, too much over-simplification leads to a form of learned 
helplessness and a bigger chasm between the technical, and non-technical 
users.

> The printer drivers issue became irrelevant when the OS handled the 
> printers and font rendering etc.

... not that M$ didn't simply co-opt the lesson from others who'd been 
doing it for a very long time. However, it's not such a bad thing to learn 
from others. They certainly "learned" plenty from MacOS.

> and most users much preferred the GUI model of text-editing to the 
> WordPerfect embedded-control-codes model.

You are right, most did prefer it. However, at the time, I remember much 
wailing and gnashing of teeth as people who had mastered WP screamed at 
Word for trying to outsmart them and they couldn't simply delete the 
offending control character to reverse the automagically-helpy "features" 
they are always trying to shovel into Word/Office. 

I personally still find Word to be an infuriating abomination no matter 
how many Paper Clips, ribbon-interfaces, or hollywood-squares-metro GUIs 
they put on it. A slime mold in a dress is still just a greasy disgusting 
fungus.

Boy did Wordperfect go down in flames quick, though. I won't argue that M$ 
cleaned their clock in record time. It seemed like in only a couple of 
years they went from total-domination to being bought by... Corel (?!).

> Interestingly, more things seem to understand the Vi keystrokes now, at 
> least on Unix.

Hmm, IMHO, I'd say that it's still pretty equal and if there was any edge, 
it'd go to EMACS editing mode and keystrokes (especially ctrl-a and 
ctrl-e). It has a lot to do with what things like libreadline supports by 
default and what editing mode your shell defaults to. I don't personally 
like dealing with any kind of termdef/termcap/terminal-control and so I 
nearly always go looking for someone else's code who's already slogged 
through editing modes and UTF-8. 

> I cordially dislike both Vi & Emacs: I grew up with keyboards with 
> cursor and delete keys, but they didn't have META or SUPER or any of 
> that guff.

Well, I do understand were this comes from. UNIX folks were dealing with a 
sort of multi-culturalism problem. Since it runs on so many hardware 
platforms and interoperates with tons of terminal types (and DOS or 
Windows either didn't exist yet, or didn't run on those platforms), folks 
are (even still) hand-wringing a lot about terminals that have different 
cursor key mappings et al. That's always the explanation you hear around 
why VI cursor movement keys aren't (just) arrow keys, and also include 
'h', 'j', 'k', and 'l'.  

So, I don't understand why, after x86 has absolutely dominated the 
computing scene for a few decades, that there is any excuse left for 
editors or terminal emulators that screw up the cursor movement keys right 
outta the box. It's not like there are that many types of keyboard 
scancodes for cursor keys on PeeCees (and heck, even non-PC UNIX hardware 
that uses PS/2 or USB keyboards). I don't accept the excuses about 100's 
of terminal types in the 1980's. That was just too long ago to still be 
moaning about today. Most of those terminals are in landfills, too. A few 
hobbyists like me might have some or play with them, but if you are 
pimping a UNIX variant today and you can't deal (by default out of the 
box) with cursor keys: your vendor or project needs a reality check. Lame 
excuses about old terminals making it "hard" are totally worn out and only 
sound laughable in 2016.

H

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
> WordStar commands for that operation would be:
> Mark beginning of block: ^K B
> Mark end of block: ^K K
> (WordStar did not allow block selection with the cursor keys.)

AFAIK, original Wordstar didn't, but the Borland IDE and Joe does. Just 
hold down ctrl and start hitting cursor keys to cover the text you need to 
select. Badabing. You've got yourself a selection. 

-Swift

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On 8 July 2016 at 18:15, Swift Griggs  wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
>> WordStar commands are still used in some things, such as JOE.
>
> You are right and I use Joe daily, hmm, more like hourly. I'm typing this
> message in it, right now, in fact. It's my $EDITOR and default composition
> editor in Alpine, my go-to mail client.

Gmail on the web, these days. Sometimes on Mac OS X, or should I now
say macOS... :-(
... and sometimes on Linux. Dedicated client on Android.

I keep Thunderbird around, but only for backup purposes.

I don't have a favourite Linux console-mode text editor. Normally I
just use vi, with a faint grimace of distaste. I only know _very_
simple commands -- insert, append, delete, save/exit or quit. I never
even learned how to copy/paste in it. Something bizarre involving
'yank' is all I recall and I don't know how to do it.

On my own boxes, I sometimes install Tilde, but normally use whatever
the GUI's editor is -- Gedit on Unity, Leafpad on Lxde, Geany on XFCE.

If I don't have a GUI, though, plain old vi. I dislike both Nano and
Joe, although I'm perfectly able to use either, so there's no point
installing them if they're not there.

I really _really_ wish there was something like SetEdit or Tilde in
the default repos for Debian/*buntu/CentOS. EFTE is sometimes there
but it has issues, IIRC.

>> However, they went away before the GUI era and are mostly now forgotten.
>> Including by you! ;-)
>
> Some of us perhaps, but after writing a few hundred thousand lines of code
> in Borland IDEs in the 1990s, I couldn't forget the keystrokes if I wanted
> to, I think.

I can remember more functionality via WordStar keystrokes than I can
via vi ones! :-)

> I liked both of them. The coolest thing about Wordperfect was how they
> actually paid attention to the fact that white text on a blue background
> was supposedly easier on ones eyes. I believe there was some kind of
> research into this, but I'm not sure if it was the by Wordperfect Corp.

Yes, it did look better, true.

But all those arcane Ctrl-shift F5, shift-F7, alt-F11, F3, ctrl-F1
patterns -- eeuw.

When WP 5.1 caught on, at least I could use drop-downs for the stuff I
couldn't remember the f-key combos for.

I have a download of WP 6 for DOS here, waiting for me to try in a VM.

I have Word 5.5 and 6 for DOS, but they can readily and repeatably
crash DOSemu. :-(

> My recollection of that time was that, as soon as the unwashed masses saw
> that GUIs were going to be the norm on microcomputers, they were
> well-past-done with anything character based. I don't actually see that as
> 100% positive progress, though. I see it as emblematic of how "users" see
> computers, with both good and bad implications. Greater accessibility
> means more overall benefit to more people, and that's a good thing.
> However, too much over-simplification leads to a form of learned
> helplessness and a bigger chasm between the technical, and non-technical
> users.

Definitely, on all points. Yes, GUIs swept away the console stuff, and
with good reason -- there was so little standardisation among
text-mode apps. I had to memorise dozens and dozens of totally
different UIs, and almost all of them were nasty.

But, yes, it certainly contributed to the dumbing-down of software and
users both.

> ... not that M$ didn't simply co-opt the lesson from others who'd been
> doing it for a very long time. However, it's not such a bad thing to learn
> from others. They certainly "learned" plenty from MacOS.

True! But then, MacOS learned from the Lisa, and the Lisa learned from
the Xerox Star. Sadly, only the surface appearance, though -- not the
ubiquitous networking, not the OOPS dev tools.

> You are right, most did prefer it. However, at the time, I remember much
> wailing and gnashing of teeth as people who had mastered WP screamed at
> Word for trying to outsmart them and they couldn't simply delete the
> offending control character to reverse the automagically-helpy "features"
> they are always trying to shovel into Word/Office.

Yep. Me too. Both remembered, and occasionally, cursed it.

I am fully aware that my feelings towards MS Word are a form of
Stockholm Syndrome. I don't think it's a good app, just the one I now
know best.

It's for good reasons that I use the oldest versions I can.

> I personally still find Word to be an infuriating abomination no matter
> how many Paper Clips, ribbon-interfaces, or hollywood-squares-metro GUIs
> they put on it. A slime mold in a dress is still just a greasy disgusting
> fungus.

It's been decaying since Office 2007 for me. I won't use Windows
versions after 2003. On Windows, I use Word97 now, or LibreOffice.

> Boy did Wordperfect go down in flames quick, though. I won't argue that M$
> cleaned their clock in record time. It seemed like in only a couple of
> years they went from total-domination to being bought by... Corel (?!).

Yes indeed!

They missed the Windows boat, and it doomed them.

Sha

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On 8 July 2016 at 18:20, Swift Griggs  wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
>> WordStar commands for that operation would be:
>> Mark beginning of block: ^K B
>> Mark end of block: ^K K
>> (WordStar did not allow block selection with the cursor keys.)
>
> AFAIK, original Wordstar didn't, but the Borland IDE and Joe does. Just
> hold down ctrl and start hitting cursor keys to cover the text you need to
> select. Badabing. You've got yourself a selection.


That I did not know. Interesting.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On 07/08/2016 09:20 AM, Swift Griggs wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
>> WordStar commands for that operation would be: Mark beginning of
>> block: ^K B Mark end of block: ^K K (WordStar did not allow block
>> selection with the cursor keys.)
> 
> AFAIK, original Wordstar didn't, but the Borland IDE and Joe does.
> Just hold down ctrl and start hitting cursor keys to cover the text
> you need to select. Badabing. You've got yourself a selection.

Wordstar allowed for "user routines" for various keyboard and display
functions.  I suspect you could have made any key or combination of keys
do all sorts of strange things.

After WS on the PC, I moved to Wordstar 2000.  A great product, but
utterly incompatible with WordStar (MicroPro provided a "Star Exchange"
utility with WS2K to handle conversions).  Different key combinations,
options, displays entirely.  But it did handle prop spacing fonts quite
nicely.   I still have the instructions from a third-party outfit on how
to make WS 3.3 handle prop spacing, but it's a real kludge.

Different WP packages had their own peculiar advantages.  North Star
Memorite, for example, had great footnoting.

--Chuck

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On 8 July 2016 at 19:08, Chuck Guzis  wrote:
>
> Wordstar allowed for "user routines" for various keyboard and display
> functions.  I suspect you could have made any key or combination of keys
> do all sorts of strange things.

Ah, yes, I vaguely recall looking at that. But it was too much like
hard work for me.

The ultimate customisable WP was arguably Borland Sprint, I believe.
It sounded great, but I only tried it very briefly and for me, it
didn't offer enough to tempt me away from MS Word.

MS Word 5.5 is available as freeware from Microsoft now, as a
one-size-suits-all Year 2000 fix for all DOS versions of Word. I don't
know why they didn't just bit the bullet and give out Word 6, which
was the last ever version for DOS and is pretty much
feature-equivalent and UI-equivalent to MS Word 6 for Windows 3 and
classic MacOS too.

>
> After WS on the PC, I moved to Wordstar 2000.  A great product, but
> utterly incompatible with WordStar (MicroPro provided a "Star Exchange"
> utility with WS2K to handle conversions).  Different key combinations,
> options, displays entirely.  But it did handle prop spacing fonts quite
> nicely.   I still have the instructions from a third-party outfit on how
> to make WS 3.3 handle prop spacing, but it's a real kludge.

Yes, I remember it. It sorted out a lot of the idiosyncrasies of
classic WordStar, but it was no easier for a WordStar user to
transition to W*2K than it was to a rival WP -- such as the more
widely-used, widely-supported, and on the whole more powerful
WordPerfect.

Always risky to try such a big transition.

I presume folk here know of the excellent history of the app family?
http://www.wordstar.org/index.php/wordstar-history

There was also the now-nearly-forgotten WordStar Express, another
totally new app, written I believe in Modula-2.  I never heard of
anyone using the normal version, but it was bundled with certain
Amstrad PCs as WordStar 1512, and I saw quite a few people using that.

(Mainly the Amstrad PC1512, I guess, from the name! It was the first
'Strad PC clone, and a weirdly nonstandard one at that.)

Also neither file- nor keystroke-compatible, and a bit sluggish, too.

Weird weird move, given WordStar's main selling points were its
keyboard commands and its speed!

> Different WP packages had their own peculiar advantages.  North Star
> Memorite, for example, had great footnoting.

I never saw that one.

Only hardcore IBM customers used DisplayWrite. It had, naturally,
great support for IBM's (rather expensive but very solid) laser
printers, which were slightly competitive and popular around the end
of the 1980s/beginning of the 1990s. Odd spindly fonts, as I recall.

My first employers sold a lot of copies of Ashton-Tate MultiMate, as
it was the only mainstream network-aware WP for DOS LANs -- it
supported both Netware and 3Com 3+Share, which was also popular around
that time. It may have done file locking and network-drive shared
templates, but as you say, proportionally-spaced fonts were a problem.

Bad old days.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On 07/08/2016 10:27 AM, Liam Proven wrote:

> Only hardcore IBM customers used DisplayWrite. It had, naturally, 
> great support for IBM's (rather expensive but very solid) laser 
> printers, which were slightly competitive and popular around the end 
> of the 1980s/beginning of the 1990s. Odd spindly fonts, as I recall.
> 
> My first employers sold a lot of copies of Ashton-Tate MultiMate, as 
> it was the only mainstream network-aware WP for DOS LANs -- it 
> supported both Netware and 3Com 3+Share, which was also popular
> around that time. It may have done file locking and network-drive
> shared templates, but as you say, proportionally-spaced fonts were a
> problem.

What I found surprising about the IBM Displaywriter was that much of the
"smarts" of the thing resided in the printer firmware itself (e.g.
underlining, bolding, etc.) and not the DW CPU unit--and, of course, the
printer used EBCDIC.

There were a mess of PC word processors, as well as CP/M ones.
WordPerfect, PerfectWriter, PC Write, Palantir, Electric Pencil...

I recall that the preferred one for the AVR Eagle systems was
Spellbinder and that it had a lot of adherents--I don't know if it was
ever offered for the PC platform.

On occasion, I still use an editor that I wrote for CP/M and later
ported to DOS.  11KB and it has lots of features that are peculiar to my
preferences.  I'd thought about porting it to Linux, but currently, it's
still in assembly and dealing with terminfo or curses is not something
that I look forward to.  So I use Joe.

--Chuck

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

2016-07-08 Thread Eric Christopherson

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Liam Proven  wrote:

> But when I got my hands on early Macs and Windows 2 in my first job, I
> discovered the CUA model, and I've liked it ever since. I still miss
> CUA editing on the Linux command line.
>
> There are some: http://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/42908.html
>

Thanks, Liam -- that page has finally brought back to me the name of Xwpe,
an IDE/editor I played around with a little in the 90s. I never really used
it for anything, but for whatever reason I've been really curious about its
identity for all this time.

"
First, he pointed me at XWPE. It certainly looks the part, but sadly the
project seems to have died. I did get it running on Fedora 20 by installing
some extra libraries and symlinking them to names XWPE wanted, but it
crashes very readily.
http://www.identicalsoftware.com/xwpe
"

-- 
Eric Christopherson

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On 8 July 2016 at 20:00, Chuck Guzis  wrote:
> On 07/08/2016 10:27 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>
>
>> Only hardcore IBM customers used DisplayWrite. It had, naturally,
>> great support for IBM's (rather expensive but very solid) laser
>> printers, which were slightly competitive and popular around the end
>> of the 1980s/beginning of the 1990s. Odd spindly fonts, as I recall.
>>
>> My first employers sold a lot of copies of Ashton-Tate MultiMate, as
>> it was the only mainstream network-aware WP for DOS LANs -- it
>> supported both Netware and 3Com 3+Share, which was also popular
>> around that time. It may have done file locking and network-drive
>> shared templates, but as you say, proportionally-spaced fonts were a
>> problem.
>
>
> What I found surprising about the IBM Displaywriter was that much of the
> "smarts" of the thing resided in the printer firmware itself (e.g.
> underlining, bolding, etc.) and not the DW CPU unit--and, of course, the
> printer used EBCDIC.

Aha. I have never seen an actual DisplayWriter -- note that final "r".

DisplayWrite (no "r" on the end) was a WP package for DOS. I believe
it looked & worked quite like a hardware DisplayWriter, but as I said,
I wouldn't know. I'm quite curious and I'm sorry I missed out on them.

Oddly, at least oddly I was told, quite a few people/companies bought
& used DisplayWrite even if they never had or used a hardware
DisplayWriter. It wasn't very competitive but it was good enough --
the "professional" tier of early DOS wordprocessors were all expensive
and rather arcane.

It's also something that seemed to cause a major divide across the
Atlantic, for some odd reason. Brits almost never paid for or
registered shareware, I'm told, whereas many North Americans did and
it could be a lucrative business.

Over here in Europe it wasn't taken very seriously so none of the
shareware WPs took off.

The American magazines I read talked of WPs I'd never seen -- and as a
professional skill I learned just about every WP program I could set
hands on on DOS and Mac. Brits used ones that were obscure in N
America, and vice versa.

> There were a mess of PC word processors, as well as CP/M ones.
> WordPerfect, PerfectWriter, PC Write, Palantir, Electric Pencil...

Heard of the latter 2, never saw them.

Oh, and there was LetterPerfect, too, the cheap cut-down WordPerfect.

> I recall that the preferred one for the AVR Eagle systems was
> Spellbinder and that it had a lot of adherents--I don't know if it was
> ever offered for the PC platform.

I am not sure but I think so, yes.

> On occasion, I still use an editor that I wrote for CP/M and later
> ported to DOS.  11KB and it has lots of features that are peculiar to my
> preferences.  I'd thought about porting it to Linux, but currently, it's
> still in assembly and dealing with terminfo or curses is not something
> that I look forward to.  So I use Joe.

:-)

There are or were lots of odd editors for the PC. IBM E was one --
apparently it's quite like some mainframe tool. Came with PC-DOS and
was... strange.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On 07/08/2016 11:19 AM, Liam Proven wrote:

> There are or were lots of odd editors for the PC. IBM E was one -- 
> apparently it's quite like some mainframe tool. Came with PC-DOS and 
> was... strange.

Originally, PC-DOS had only EDLIN, which, amazingly, was *less* powerful
than CP/M ED.

"E" in  PC DOS didn't come about until version 6.3 or so.  By then, MS
had their EDIT editor which was intimately tied into QuickBASIC.

Before that, when I typed "E" on my old PC systems, I get the Semware
editor--a very nice tool.  I purchased it, but rarely used it.

Another good DOS editor was VEDIT, which, IIRC, was also offered for the
IBM Displaywriter.

I still don't like *nix vi to this very day.

--Chuck

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On 8 July 2016 at 20:42, Chuck Guzis  wrote:
>> There are or were lots of odd editors for the PC. IBM E was one --
>> apparently it's quite like some mainframe tool. Came with PC-DOS and
>> was... strange.
>
> Originally, PC-DOS had only EDLIN, which, amazingly, was *less* powerful
> than CP/M ED.

Oh my, yes. I was quite the Edlin virtuoso in the late '80s, but then,
there really wasn't much to master.

> "E" in  PC DOS didn't come about until version 6.3 or so.  By then, MS
> had their EDIT editor which was intimately tied into QuickBASIC.

Ah yes, true. It got separated out in the NT era.

> Before that, when I typed "E" on my old PC systems, I get the Semware
> editor--a very nice tool.  I purchased it, but rarely used it.
>
> Another good DOS editor was VEDIT, which, IIRC, was also offered for the
> IBM Displaywriter.

Never saw them!

> I still don't like *nix vi to this very day.

Oh good, it's not just me. :-)


-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)


On 2016-07-08 3:19 PM, Liam Proven wrote:

On 8 July 2016 at 20:00, Chuck Guzis  wrote:

On 07/08/2016 10:27 AM, Liam Proven wrote:



Only hardcore IBM customers used DisplayWrite. It had, naturally,
great support for IBM's (rather expensive but very solid) laser
printers, which were slightly competitive and popular around the end
of the 1980s/beginning of the 1990s. Odd spindly fonts, as I recall.

My first employers sold a lot of copies of Ashton-Tate MultiMate, as
it was the only mainstream network-aware WP for DOS LANs -- it
supported both Netware and 3Com 3+Share, which was also popular
around that time. It may have done file locking and network-drive
shared templates, but as you say, proportionally-spaced fonts were a
problem.


What I found surprising about the IBM Displaywriter was that much of the
"smarts" of the thing resided in the printer firmware itself (e.g.
underlining, bolding, etc.) and not the DW CPU unit--and, of course, the
printer used EBCDIC.

Aha. I have never seen an actual DisplayWriter -- note that final "r".

DisplayWrite (no "r" on the end) was a WP package for DOS. I believe
it looked & worked quite like a hardware DisplayWriter, but as I said,
I wouldn't know. I'm quite curious and I'm sorry I missed out on them.

Oddly, at least oddly I was told, quite a few people/companies bought
& used DisplayWrite even if they never had or used a hardware
DisplayWriter. It wasn't very competitive but it was good enough --
the "professional" tier of early DOS wordprocessors were all expensive
and rather arcane.


There was also a version of displaywrite for 370, I am told that the 
only thing that is really similar is the name of the products. Before 
displaywriter the OP division of IBM produced the Office system 6 which 
had a really cool inkjet printer as long as you didn't have to fix 
them service reps called them "Spray and pray" They where not a thermal 
inkjet like most modern ones, but rather used a pressurized ink system 
to force the ink through nozzles on the print head, I saw one operating 
without the shroud around the printhead that sucked back overspray, it 
was really cool the print head moved along silently and the character 
just appeared on the page.  Print quality was very good.  The 6670 laser 
printer ( a copier 3 with a laser print head) was also originally part 
of that system  they also produced good quality results but often had 
duplexing issues.  later on there was the 5520 system which was really a 
S/34 running special software and a special version of the 5251 terminals.


The first purpose built wordprocessor I ever saw was a Micom system in a 
government office around 1980/81.  Micom first made wordprocessors based 
on 8080 around 1975.


Paul.

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)


On 2016-07-08 3:45 PM, Liam Proven wrote:

On 8 July 2016 at 20:42, Chuck Guzis  wrote:

There are or were lots of odd editors for the PC. IBM E was one --
apparently it's quite like some mainframe tool. Came with PC-DOS and
was... strange.

Originally, PC-DOS had only EDLIN, which, amazingly, was *less* powerful
than CP/M ED.

Oh my, yes. I was quite the Edlin virtuoso in the late '80s, but then,
there really wasn't much to master.


"E" in  PC DOS didn't come about until version 6.3 or so.  By then, MS
had their EDIT editor which was intimately tied into QuickBASIC.

Ah yes, true. It got separated out in the NT era.


Before that, when I typed "E" on my old PC systems, I get the Semware
editor--a very nice tool.  I purchased it, but rarely used it.

Another good DOS editor was VEDIT, which, IIRC, was also offered for the
IBM Displaywriter.


The DOS editor I really like  was originally call PE and an enhanced 
version "E" was shipped with later version of PC-DOS, there are also 
some clones of the editor floating around as well.  I still use this 
editor regularly because of its very flexible ways of selecting and 
manipulating text.


Paul.

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On 07/08/2016 11:46 AM, Paul Berger wrote:

> Before displaywriter the OP division of IBM produced the Office
> system 6 which had a really cool inkjet printer as long as you
> didn't have to fix them service reps called them "Spray and pray"
> They where not a thermal inkjet like most modern ones, but rather
> used a pressurized ink system to force the ink through nozzles on the
> print head, I saw one operating without the shroud around the
> printhead that sucked back overspray, it was really cool the print
> head moved along silently and the character just appeared on the
> page.

I recall seeing the IBM inkjet printer at a late 70s NCC.  IIRC it used
electrostatics to deflect the ink drops to their proper position.

> The first purpose built wordprocessor I ever saw was a Micom system
> in a government office around 1980/81.  Micom first made
> wordprocessors based on 8080 around 1975.

Another one that pops into my head was CPT, which used a page-edit sort
of terminal. The system spewed a page's worth of text to the terminal,
which was then edited on the terminal offline.  The operator then hit
"send" (or some such) to transmit the edited content back to the host.
I still have a flipchart reference and a few 8" CPT disks.

Some WPs, such as Artec, used a Diablo KSR with a one-line LCD mounted
on it and a floor-standing dual 8" drive main unit.  IIRC, there was a
CRT option available, but it was expensive.

Then there were the systems installed in newspaper bullpens--essentially
smart terminals hooked to a server.  I don't recall the leading brand,
but I think Lanier was very big in that area.

Initially, I think the biggest advantages of the early wapros was the
ability to make edits to existing documents and to create multiple
copies of the same document.  I wonder how many of the young 'uns here
have experienced the joys of carbon paper (especially when accidentally
reversed) or having to re-type a whole page of text to make a few simple
edits.

--Chuck

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

2016-07-08 Thread william degnan

I used, until my Windows XP days, an editor called Qedit.  Q.exe It was
fast and one could edit columns as well as rows.  This made it useful for
pre-parsing of data files.

I also used PEdit, an IBM program.  I used to teach DisplayWrite 4 at the
IBM Customer Center in Wilmington, Delaware.

I must have a few dozen word processor programs, little ones mostly, from
various systems.  A lot of WordStar versions in particular for CP/M.

b

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)


On 2016-07-08 4:28 PM, John Willis wrote:


There are or were lots of odd editors for the PC. IBM E was one --
apparently it's quite like some mainframe tool. Came with PC-DOS and
was... strange.



I liked EPM under OS/2, and had to get acquainted with TEDIT for disaster
recovery of same. I believe "E" under OS/2 was just a stripped-down GUI
editor akin to MS Notepad.
EPM was another derivative of the DOS editor PE.  PE was one of several 
very nice DOS programs written by IBMers in their spare time, many of 
these where shared internally and PE was one of them that later became 
an official product.


Paul.

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

2016-07-08 Thread Paul Koning

> On Jul 8, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Chuck Guzis  wrote:
> 
> On 07/08/2016 11:46 AM, Paul Berger wrote:
> 
>> Before displaywriter the OP division of IBM produced the Office
>> system 6 which had a really cool inkjet printer as long as you
>> didn't have to fix them service reps called them "Spray and pray"
>> They where not a thermal inkjet like most modern ones, but rather
>> used a pressurized ink system to force the ink through nozzles on the
>> print head, I saw one operating without the shroud around the
>> printhead that sucked back overspray, it was really cool the print
>> head moved along silently and the character just appeared on the
>> page.
> 
> I recall seeing the IBM inkjet printer at a late 70s NCC.  IIRC it used
> electrostatics to deflect the ink drops to their proper position.

I saw that technology described in a Dutch magazine ("De Ingenieur" = "the 
engineer") around 1972 or so.  As PB mentioned, it uses a shroud or baffle, 
since the ink stream is always active; the control voltage steers the drops 
towards the paper or towards the baffle.  Ink hitting the baffle was 
recirculated, I think.

> ...
> Initially, I think the biggest advantages of the early wapros was the
> ability to make edits to existing documents and to create multiple
> copies of the same document.  I wonder how many of the young 'uns here
> have experienced the joys of carbon paper (especially when accidentally
> reversed) or having to re-type a whole page of text to make a few simple
> edits.

A bit like editing text (programs) on paper tape...

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen the IBM MT/ST mentioned.  That's 
certainly a rather old system, dating back to 1964 according to Wikipedia, 
which says it's the oldest word processor (and references an article about WP 
history).

paul

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

2016-07-08 Thread John Willis

>
>
> There are or were lots of odd editors for the PC. IBM E was one --
> apparently it's quite like some mainframe tool. Came with PC-DOS and
> was... strange.
>
>
I liked EPM under OS/2, and had to get acquainted with TEDIT for disaster
recovery of same. I believe "E" under OS/2 was just a stripped-down GUI
editor akin to MS Notepad.

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)


On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Paul Koning wrote:
I may have missed it, but I haven't seen the IBM MT/ST mentioned. 
That's certainly a rather old system, dating back to 1964 according to 
Wikipedia, which says it's the oldest word processor (and references an 
article about WP history).


The original post that started this thread referred to a URL
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/06/how-to-write-a-history-of-writing-software/489173/?platform=hootsuite

It suggested that one significant contender for that author's "FIRST 
author to write a book on a word processor" was Len Deighton.  In the late 
1960s he bought one.  He wrote first drafts on his typewriter, then his 
secretary, Ellenor Handley, retyped it into his MT/ST and edited it there.

Specifically, a novel entitled "Bomber", published in 1970.

If the MT/ST was released in 1964, then even with its high price, it seems 
odd that so many years would go by before anybody used it for a book 
manuscript.



(I also mentioned that the pronunciation of MT/ST made me want to create a 
word processor to be called "FULL ST")

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On 2016-07-08 4:33 PM, Paul Koning wrote:

On Jul 8, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:

On 07/08/2016 11:46 AM, Paul Berger wrote:

Before displaywriter the OP division of IBM produced the Office
system 6 which had a really cool inkjet printer as long as you
didn't have to fix them service reps called them "Spray and pray"
They where not a thermal inkjet like most modern ones, but rather
used a pressurized ink system to force the ink through nozzles on the
print head, I saw one operating without the shroud around the
printhead that sucked back overspray, it was really cool the print
head moved along silently and the character just appeared on the
page.

I recall seeing the IBM inkjet printer at a late 70s NCC. IIRC it used
electrostatics to deflect the ink drops to their proper position.

I saw that technology described in a Dutch magazine ("De Ingenieur" = "the
engineer") around 1972 or so. As PB mentioned, it uses a shroud or baffle, since the ink
stream is always active; the control voltage steers the drops towards the paper or towards the
baffle. Ink hitting the baffle was recirculated, I think.
Yes that is correct some of the droplets where purposely steered into
the "gutter" and yes it was by electrostatic deflection.. IBM would used
the same sort of system in the Item Numbering Feature (INF) on the 3890
cheque sorter to print a number on the back of documents on the fly.
This machine could process up to 2400 cheaque sized documents a minute
so they are really moving along... print quality was not quite as good.

...
Initially, I think the biggest advantages of the early wapros was the
ability to make edits to existing documents and to create multiple
copies of the same document. I wonder how many of the young 'uns here
have experienced the joys of carbon paper (especially when accidentally
reversed) or having to re-type a whole page of text to make a few simple
edits.

A bit like editing text (programs) on paper tape...

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen the IBM MT/ST mentioned. That's
certainly a rather old system, dating back to 1964 according to Wikipedia,
which says it's the oldest word processor (and references an article about WP
history).
I remember some of the older OP techs talking about the MT/ST, the tape
reader was entirely electro-mechanical and read in stripes across the
tape. This would be a precursor of the Magcard Selectric and the Memory
typewriter. The later had a wide loop of tape inside an enlarged
selectric case for storage.

Paul.

paul

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

2016-07-08 Thread Paul Koning

> On Jul 8, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Fred Cisin  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Paul Koning wrote:
>> I may have missed it, but I haven't seen the IBM MT/ST mentioned. That's 
>> certainly a rather old system, dating back to 1964 according to Wikipedia, 
>> which says it's the oldest word processor (and references an article about 
>> WP history).
> 
> The original post that started this thread referred to a URL
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/06/how-to-write-a-history-of-writing-software/489173/?platform=hootsuite
> 
> It suggested that one significant contender for that author's "FIRST author 
> to write a book on a word processor" was Len Deighton.  In the late 1960s he 
> bought one.  He wrote first drafts on his typewriter, then his secretary, 
> Ellenor Handley, retyped it into his MT/ST and edited it there.
> Specifically, a novel entitled "Bomber", published in 1970.
> 
> If the MT/ST was released in 1964, then even with its high price, it seems 
> odd that so many years would go by before anybody used it for a book 
> manuscript.

I can think of any number of reasons.  $10k, in 1964?  That's half a house.  
Its user interface may have been ill suited for the job; after all it was 
designed for business documents.  Finally, the tape capacity was 25 kbytes, 
which is only a few percent of the size of a typical book.  Len Deighton was a 
very successful writer by 1970; he may have decided to spend piles of money on 
a new tool because he could.   But few writers strike it rich; they'd buy a 
good typewriter because it's a mandatory tool, but few would want to spend more 
than that.

paul

Re: word processor history -- interesting article

2016-07-08 Thread Evan Koblentz

What the  hadn't looked at my cctalk messages in a few days and just 
realized every subject line says my name. That is creepy.

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On 07/08/2016 12:33 PM, Paul Koning wrote:

> I may have missed it, but I haven't seen the IBM MT/ST mentioned.
> That's certainly a rather old system, dating back to 1964 according
> to Wikipedia, which says it's the oldest word processor (and
> references an article about WP history).

That was mentioned, both in the article and by yours truly pretty early on.

Another one was the IBM Mag Card typewriter.

--Chuck

Re: word processor history -- interesting article


[continued discussion from the URL that Evan posted]
If the MT/ST was released in 1964, then even with its high price, it 
seems odd that so many years would go by before anybody used it for a 
book manuscript.


On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Paul Koning wrote:
I can think of any number of reasons.  $10k, in 1964?  That's half a 
house.  Its user interface may have been ill suited for the job; after 
all it was designed for business documents.  Finally, the tape capacity 
was 25 kbytes, which is only a few percent of the size of a typical 
book.  Len Deighton was a very successful writer by 1970; he may have 
decided to spend piles of money on a new tool because he could.  But few 
writers strike it rich; they'd buy a good typewriter because it's a 
mandatory tool, but few would want to spend more than that.


I agree that it was hideously expensive, and a writer would have to be 
wealthy to consider it.


In those days, it was common practice for a writer to pay a typist to 
retype his typed manuscript before submitting it to a publisher.  And, if 
submitting to more than one, MT/ST made multiple typed copies practical, 
whereas few publishers would bother to read carbon copies.


And, as I mentioned previously, it was quite common for secretaries 
moonlighting as typists to bring work in and use them after-hours. 
(sometimes with tacit approval from the boss!  My boss gave me after-hours 
access to use 026 punches, ('course I left them cleaner than when I 
started, with emptied bins, refilled card supply, jams cleared from down 
punches, etc.))



Admittedly, many typists with access to one would have re-typed later 
drafts, rather than use the editing capabilities, if there were more than 
a few changes per paragraph.  To a real typist (>100WPM), moving a cursor 
to position took as long as typing the line.   Drafts close to the final 
one, where entire paragraphs, pages, or even tapes could be left alone 
would be where it would finally be very worthwhile.



Therefore, Deighton's sole claim to fame in this was OWNERSHIP of the 
MT/ST that his manuscripts were processed on.



25K per tape would mean a box of tapes, but that's not surprising nor 
daunting.   Unlike "modern" wordprocessors which use Megabytes per page, 
in order to maintain capability of including dancing kangaroos and 
yodelling jellyfish, that 25K was probably about a dozen pages (per 
tape).   If one or two tapes could be used for each chapter, it would work 
out great.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

2016-07-08 Thread Sean Conner

It was thus said that the Great Paul Berger once stated:
> >
> The DOS editor I really like  was originally call PE and an enhanced 
> version "E" was shipped with later version of PC-DOS, there are also 
> some clones of the editor floating around as well.  I still use this 
> editor regularly because of its very flexible ways of selecting and 
> manipulating text.

  I used PE 1.0 for *years* as my editor, and only found two issues with it:

1) it only supported lines of 255 characters or less
2) it didn't handle files where lines didn't end with CRLF

That's it.  I was even able to edit files that exceeded the RAM of the
machine (I didn't do it often since it was sluggish but it could handle it).

  -spc (I just wish I could have found the source code to is, but alas ... )

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

2016-07-08 Thread Sean Conner

It was thus said that the Great Chuck Guzis once stated:
> 
> On occasion, I still use an editor that I wrote for CP/M and later
> ported to DOS.  11KB and it has lots of features that are peculiar to my
> preferences.  I'd thought about porting it to Linux, but currently, it's
> still in assembly and dealing with terminfo or curses is not something
> that I look forward to.  So I use Joe.

  I've come to the conclusion [1] that terminfo and curses aren't needed any
more.  If you target VT100 (or Xterm or any other derivative) and directly
write ANSI sequences, it'll just work.  It's a few lines of code to get the
current TTY (on any modern Unix system) into raw mode in order to read
characters [2].

  -spc (Of course, then you have to deal with escape sequences, which can
get messy ... )

[1] Bias most likely from my own usage.  Mileage may vary here on this
list where all sorts of odd-ball systems are still in use 8-P

[2] It's six lines to get an open TTY into raw mode, one line to restore
upon exit.  Add in a few more lines to handle SIGWINCH (window
resize).  *Much* easier than dealing with curses.

Re: word processor history


On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Sean Conner wrote:

That's it.  I was even able to edit files that exceeded the RAM of the
machine (I didn't do it often since it was sluggish but it could handle it).


Many early word processing programs were limited to RAM.  It was common 
practice to use a separate file per chapter, sometimes splitting aq 
chapter into two files.


But, a few programs did page in from disk.

'Course with disk(s) of 100K - 250K, you still might need more than one 
disk for a book.

Re: word processor history -- interesting article

On 07/08/2016 01:42 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:

> And, as I mentioned previously, it was quite common for secretaries 
> moonlighting as typists to bring work in and use them after-hours. 
> (sometimes with tacit approval from the boss!  My boss gave me 
> after-hours access to use 026 punches, ('course I left them cleaner
> than when I started, with emptied bins, refilled card supply, jams
> cleared from down punches, etc.))

Another thing that's forgotten is the stratification of tasks back in
those days.  Keypunching one's own code was frowned upon as a waste of
valuable technical time; there were lower-paid keypunch operators to do
that.

Similarly, having a typewriter in one's office was also frowned upon, as
there were secretaries to do that sort of work.

I had (and still have) miserable handwriting (both script and block
lettering), so I at least had a plausible excuse for doing my own
key-wrangling.  But I had to put up with a considerable fog of official
disapproval.

--Chuck

Re: HP 8510 network analyser

2016-07-08 Thread Brent Hilpert

I'm 3 or more parties away from whoever would make the decision, but I've 
forwarded your expression of interest along through my friend.

Location is Vancouver BC region if you were unaware.


On 2016-Jul-08, at 1:00 AM, Curious Marc wrote:

> I have a fond memory of these. I am interested. Would they allow me to send a 
> shipper to pick it up for crating and shipping?
> Marc
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Brent Hilpert  wrote:
>> 
>> So a friend tells me there's a maybe-abandoned HP 8510 Network Analyzer in 
>> the hallway of the engineering building of the univ. he works at.
>> I presume it's a unit like this, as he says it's over a metre tall:
>>   http://www.ece.lsu.edu/emdl/facilities/network%20analyser.html
>> 
>> I figure its a little too far large and too far away from my needs to take 
>> it on, but out of curiousity does anyone know offhand what processor they 
>> used in these?
>> (I haven't looked in depth online).
>> Cursory guess is its mid-90s technology.
>>

server maintenance

2016-07-08 Thread Jay West

The classiccmp VM will go down tonight around 10pm-ish CST. There is nothing
wrong with the VM, but the NAS it's disks are on is having some issues.
We've live-migrated all VDI's off that NAS except classiccmp's. Due to the
size of those drives, they will migrate a lot faster if that VM is shut down
so that's the route we're taking. I would expect it to be back up in the wee
hours of the morning - at least that's what the guy doing the work tells me.
Just fyi..

 

J

Re: server maintenance

2016-07-08 Thread Guy Sotomayor Jr

Thanks Jay.  Hopefully this will avoid a long thread on why
classiccmp is down and folks aren’t receiving messages.  ;-)

TTFN - Guy

> On Jul 8, 2016, at 2:30 PM, Jay West  wrote:
> 
> The classiccmp VM will go down tonight around 10pm-ish CST. There is nothing
> wrong with the VM, but the NAS it's disks are on is having some issues.
> We've live-migrated all VDI's off that NAS except classiccmp's. Due to the
> size of those drives, they will migrate a lot faster if that VM is shut down
> so that's the route we're taking. I would expect it to be back up in the wee
> hours of the morning - at least that's what the guy doing the work tells me.
> Just fyi..
> 
> 
> 
> J
>

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

2016-07-08 Thread Mouse

> I've come to the conclusion [1] that terminfo and curses aren't
> needed any more.  If you target VT100 (or Xterm or any other
> derivative) and directly write ANSI sequences, it'll just work.

(a) That is not my experience.

(b) To the extent that it's true, it works only if you stick to a very
much least-common-denominator set of sequences.  VT-100s, VT-220s,
VT-240s, xterms, kterms, etc, each support a slightly different set of
sequences, with in some cases (eg, DCS) slightly different semantics
for the same basic sequences.  Assume anything more than some very
minimal set and you are likely to find it breaks somewhere.

> It's a few lines of code to get the current TTY (on any modern Unix
> system) into raw mode in order to read characters [2].

"Raw mode" has been ill-defined since sgtty.h gave way to termios.h.
Raw mode usually means something like -icanon -isig -echo -opost, and
for lots of purposes you don't need to go that far; -icanon with min=1
time=0 is enough for anything that doesn't want to read
usually-signal-generating characters as data.

> [2]   It's six lines to get an open TTY into raw mode,

system("stty raw");

:-)

Let's see.

struct termios o, n; tcgetattr(fd,&o); n=o; cfmakeraw(&n); 
tcsetattr(fd,TCSANOW,&n);

One line, though admittedly it's a little long.  Two if you want to
keep the declarations and code separate.

> one line to restore upon exit.  Add in a few more lines to handle
> SIGWINCH (window resize).  *Much* easier than dealing with curses.

Depends on what you're doing.  For lots of purposes, if you don't use
curses or something morally equivalent, you will have to reinvent it,
which carries its own prices.

/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTMLmo...@rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email!   7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Looking for old connectors

2016-07-08 Thread Oliver Lehmann


Hi,

for rebuilding a circuit, I'm in need of 3 old connectors used on the  
original board.


##

One is easy - J3 is a 2x10 pin 2.54mm connector which is still common today.
But it is higher than the usual connectors. It has a hight of 1.5cm. If you
search for the printed A-MP number (1-87456-6), you'll find the housing,
but not the soldered clips used inside this housing

http://pics.pofo.de/gallery3/index.php/S8000/S8000_boards/FINCH-Adapter-Board/IMGP9593

##

The next one is a power plug used on a CDC FINCH harddisk. The manual
states, that the Connectors AMP 1-87270-1 or 3-87025-3 can be used.
I guess this where connectors used with cables - but I need a connector
which can be placed on a circuit board like this one:

http://pics.pofo.de/gallery3/index.php/S8000/S8000_boards/FINCH-Adapter-Board/IMGP9587


##

The next one is also a power plug - but I have no idea about its AMP
number or something:

http://pics.pofo.de/gallery3/index.php/S8000/S8000_boards/FINCH-Adapter-Board/IMGP9588
http://pics.pofo.de/gallery3/index.php/S8000/S8000_boards/FINCH-Adapter-Board/IMGP9589
http://pics.pofo.de/gallery3/index.php/S8000/S8000_boards/FINCH-Adapter-Board/IMGP9584

Its counterpart is shown here and labled with AMP, but no number:

http://pics.pofo.de/gallery3/index.php/S8000/S8000_case/Disk-Tape-Component/Secrets-S8000/DSCF0366



Any info on any of this connectors would be great...

Regards, Oliver

New Vint Age (was Re: Latest addition: A bondi-blue iMac)

2016-07-08 Thread Tomasz Rola

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 07:54:42PM +0200, Liam Proven wrote:
> On 1 July 2016 at 18:48, Ian Finder  wrote:
> >
> > Likewise there are Packard Bell X86 older than that iMac, that
> > would qualify by most age limits I'd expect to be imposed, but
> > that I'd cringe at seeing discussed here.
> 
> 
> This is one of the things I find a little odd about the Facebook
> Vintage Computers group. The kids get all excited about random beige
> boxes. Cheap nasty generic clones are prized if they have the
> original stickers, and they often want help doing very simple stuff
> like attaching CD-ROM drives.

Yeah. I was someone like this twenty years ago. Still too undeducated
to do what you hardcore guys do, i.e. building mind inverters (or do
you call them oscilloscopes when in public) with old radio lamps and
asking them those strange questions, like "what ya mean by 42".

:-)

Well, ok. At least *now* I can build a peecee when given some parts
and a screwdriver (and screws but if you only hand me nails I might
try too). And I am accumulating my Schwartz to actually buy some
prototyping board and u-controller and stuff like this (but mostly,
this has more to do with lack of time for such plays).

I wonder if some time from now a bunch of vintage fans will pat each
other in the backs upon entering a kilobyte of English (or any other
natural language of choice) via a physical keyboard.

[...]
> But a generic clone 486 or something? Yet people collect
> them. There's one guy who just collects bare CPUs. Dozens, hundreds
> of x86 processors.
> 
> Mystifying.

They might be future jewerly makers. I see how stupid it is, using a
chip with millions of transistors for its light reflecting value. But
the customers are not going to be certain kind of folk. More like lost
children in Mad Max 3.

> But then, I guess to them, what's the point in a 30y old Unix box
> that can't play any game more exciting than Nethack?

I have no idea. To actually use such HW nowadays, and it does not do
Angry Fish or faxbook, so one has to have some other use for
them. Perhaps having a thing that does not want to befriend me against
my will is the point? Very few will appreciate unkindness and go very
far to have more of it.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

Re: server maintenance

2016-07-08 Thread Jim Brain


On 7/8/2016 5:09 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote:

Thanks Jay.  Hopefully this will avoid a long thread on why
classiccmp is down and folks aren’t receiving messages.  ;-)

TTFN - Guy


On Jul 8, 2016, at 2:30 PM, Jay West  wrote:

The classiccmp VM will go down tonight around 10pm-ish CST. There is nothing
wrong with the VM, but the NAS it's disks are on is having some issues.
We've live-migrated all VDI's off that NAS except classiccmp's. Due to the
size of those drives, they will migrate a lot faster if that VM is shut down
so that's the route we're taking. I would expect it to be back up in the wee
hours of the morning - at least that's what the guy doing the work tells me.
Just fyi..



J



Is there a defined maintenance window for the list?  Has it been 
published?  Will users be impacted by this change? If so, I am not sure 
I am comfortable with the server being unavailable on a Friday night.  
We're still using the service at 10PM.  Has anyone performed a risk 
analysis of this change?  Is it truly necessary? Can we move it to 
Saturday morning in the wee hours, or preferably Sunday from midnight to 
6am Central?  Is it possible to schedule a call for later tonight prior 
to the maintenance window to consider the options?


:-)

--
Jim Brain
br...@jbrain.com
www.jbrain.com

Re: server maintenance

2016-07-08 Thread Ryan K. Brooks



On 7/8/16 7:11 PM, Jim Brain wrote:

On 7/8/2016 5:09 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote:

Thanks Jay.  Hopefully this will avoid a long thread on why
classiccmp is down and folks aren’t receiving messages.  ;-)

TTFN - Guy


On Jul 8, 2016, at 2:30 PM, Jay West  wrote:

The classiccmp VM will go down tonight around 10pm-ish CST. There is 
nothing

wrong with the VM, but the NAS it's disks are on is having some issues.
We've live-migrated all VDI's off that NAS except classiccmp's. Due 
to the
size of those drives, they will migrate a lot faster if that VM is 
shut down
so that's the route we're taking. I would expect it to be back up in 
the wee
hours of the morning - at least that's what the guy doing the work 
tells me.

Just fyi..

I'm going to have to ask that this goes to the change control board for 
approval, I assume you have a method of procedure to present, along with 
a full backout plan?  We'll make sure to do a post-mortem on this as 
well.





J



Is there a defined maintenance window for the list?  Has it been 
published?  Will users be impacted by this change? If so, I am not 
sure I am comfortable with the server being unavailable on a Friday 
night.  We're still using the service at 10PM.  Has anyone performed a 
risk analysis of this change?  Is it truly necessary? Can we move it 
to Saturday morning in the wee hours, or preferably Sunday from 
midnight to 6am Central?  Is it possible to schedule a call for later 
tonight prior to the maintenance window to consider the options?


:-)

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
> I can remember more functionality via WordStar keystrokes than I can via 
> vi ones! :-)

That's the very reason I teach Vi in classes but privately still use Joe 
extensively. I prefer muscle-memory-macro-keystrokes over what I'd call 
"conscious modes". I respect the ideas in Vi, and occasionally I dwell in 
it a lot and code there etc... I play some musical editor games. I even 
occasionally use the Motif-based "nedit" (esp on SGI boxen, it just ... 
feels... right). However, I feel most natural in Joe. I think it's simply 
just a "style" or taste issue based on past comfort with the WS and 
descendants. Familiarity that I'm not trying to pass off as any superiority 
in WS-family editors. I tell folks that Vi is still essential if you want 
to be a Unix bad-ass. Knowing even it's most primitive forms is helpful if 
you dive into ancient platforms and want to fix old code or impress girls 
with your regex acumen and flawless command-mode incantations. I figure 
if politicians can mix truth with lies, I can dabble, too.

> Yes, it did look better, true.

Do you happen to know that backstory about the color research? I remember 
that, but only vaguely.

> But all those arcane Ctrl-shift F5, shift-F7, alt-F11, F3, ctrl-F1 
> patterns -- eeuw.

Clerks, admins, secretaries, receptionists, record hounds, and many others 
were freakin' ninjas with them. My mom was a Q&A Write disciple, still 
uses it in DOSBox, and still can do things with it I can't reproduce 
without coding. I know they were sorta arcane, and I won't lie and say I 
was a WP badass, but I witnessed some word processing badassery in 
conjunction with it by the aforementioned tradeswomen and men.

Remember that scene in one of the Star Trek movies where he firsts 
exclaims "You mean it's a MANUAL!" when he's told the computer he's 
attempting to voice command won't respond ? You think he's going to fumble 
with the keyboard then he starts typing so fast you think he's about the 
smoke the model M or whatever he's bangin' on at lightspeed. Some folks 
are like that with their word processing skills... My awesome grandma was.  
Maybe you are one! You definitely seem to have written extensively and 
from some obvious experience and authority with word processing in 
general.

> When WP 5.1 caught on, at least I could use drop-downs for the stuff I 
> couldn't remember the f-key combos for.

Ah yes, I remember discovering that to my delight as well.

> I have a download of WP 6 for DOS here, waiting for me to try in a VM.

Yeah, I have a massive DOS collection o' piracy and purchases that are 
slowly coalescing over the years into a few organized VMs and DOSBox 
instances I've been nurturing.

> I have Word 5.5 and 6 for DOS, but they can readily and repeatably crash 
> DOSemu. :-(

I'll take your *Word* for it (ugh, sorry). I do remember it had a spiffy 
B&W graphical splash screen with someone writing with a pen, IIRC. Maybe 
that was 5.5. I think I have it around somewhere too, blaspheming some 
bits in one of my archives. :-P 

> But, yes, it certainly contributed to the dumbing-down of software and 
> users both.

Well, I think also that when commercial software puts effort into simply 
giving people what the want. It's like that old saying about people in 
democracies getting the government they deserve. In commercial software 
money = voting. People appear to *want* some of the garbage we have these 
days. Either that, or corporations are so powerful they can afford to be 
tone-deaf and full of hubris toward their customers. Hmm, wait I just 
remembered I'm a Comcast customer: my only option for fast Internet 
access. They rape me for vulgar sums and I just suck it up quietly; no 
choice.

> Sadly, only the surface appearance, though -- not the ubiquitous 
> networking, not the OOPS dev tools.

I hear ya. I've been doing a lot of fiddlin' with old 68k Macs and 
anything before Open Transport was, uhm, not so great. Even then, it's 
damn fragile and I feel like it's going to lock up at any time or this guy 
is going to show up and lecture me:

GI: Joe PSA - "Stop all the DOWNLOADIN!" 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eA3XCvrK90

> I am fully aware that my feelings towards MS Word are a form of
> Stockholm Syndrome. I don't think it's a good app, just the one I now
> know best.

Hehe, nice. At least you have a sense of humor about your heresy. :-)

> It's for good reasons that I use the oldest versions I can.

I can't even stand *trying* it now. 2003 is the last one I could even sit 
in front of. When recruiters or HR folks *DEMAND* my resume in Word, 
that's what I reach for. Been burned too many times by trying to export 
from Abiword or Libre/Open/Star Office. *claps weakly* Thanks guys, I know 
you tried. Most of the time they will grudgingly accept PDFs. I imagine 
myself smoldering and shaking with tremors the whole time spent in that 
shameful act of kowtowing to the man, though. :-> At least I h

Re: server maintenance

2016-07-08 Thread Doug Jackson

Umm

Weren't our computers designed before quality change control existed...

(Duck)

Doug

On 9 July 2016 10:39:55 am AEST, "Ryan K. Brooks"  wrote:
>
>On 7/8/16 7:11 PM, Jim Brain wrote:
>> On 7/8/2016 5:09 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote:
>>> Thanks Jay.  Hopefully this will avoid a long thread on why
>>> classiccmp is down and folks aren’t receiving messages.  ;-)
>>>
>>> TTFN - Guy
>>>
 On Jul 8, 2016, at 2:30 PM, Jay West  wrote:

 The classiccmp VM will go down tonight around 10pm-ish CST. There
>is 
 nothing
 wrong with the VM, but the NAS it's disks are on is having some
>issues.
 We've live-migrated all VDI's off that NAS except classiccmp's. Due
>
 to the
 size of those drives, they will migrate a lot faster if that VM is 
 shut down
 so that's the route we're taking. I would expect it to be back up
>in 
 the wee
 hours of the morning - at least that's what the guy doing the work 
 tells me.
 Just fyi..

>I'm going to have to ask that this goes to the change control board for
>
>approval, I assume you have a method of procedure to present, along
>with 
>a full backout plan?  We'll make sure to do a post-mortem on this
>as 
>well.
>


 J

>>
>> Is there a defined maintenance window for the list?  Has it been 
>> published?  Will users be impacted by this change? If so, I am not 
>> sure I am comfortable with the server being unavailable on a Friday 
>> night.  We're still using the service at 10PM.  Has anyone performed
>a 
>> risk analysis of this change?  Is it truly necessary? Can we move it 
>> to Saturday morning in the wee hours, or preferably Sunday from 
>> midnight to 6am Central?  Is it possible to schedule a call for later
>
>> tonight prior to the maintenance window to consider the options?
>>
>> :-)
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: server maintenance

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Jim Brain wrote:
> Is there a defined maintenance window for the list?  Has it been 
> published? Will users be impacted by this change? If so, I am not sure I 
> am comfortable with the server being unavailable on a Friday night.  
> We're still using the service at 10PM.  Has anyone performed a risk 
> analysis of this change?  Is it truly necessary? Can we move it to 
> Saturday morning in the wee hours, or preferably Sunday from midnight to 
> 6am Central?  Is it possible to schedule a call for later tonight prior 
> to the maintenance window to consider the options?
> :-)

Forget it, Jim. I've been on the maintenance bridge call for the last six 
hours and once the VPs got on, they told the GNOC to black the server out 
for six hours, they'd approve the overrule of the entire CAB if needed, 
and threatened to fire the storage, server, and data center vendors for no 
real reason. They kept yelling about customer sat for the Intertrode 
account.

You know how it is! The server will be rebooted come hell or high water! 

-Swift

Re: word processor history -- interesting article (Evan Koblentz)