On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 9:50:34 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
> On 04/21/2022 02:21 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> > On 21/04/2022 04:31, Jasen Betts wrote:
> >> On 2022-04-18, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That's not a general problem. There was a period with the early Athlons
> >>> that didn't implement some of the new Intel instructions but I've leaned
> >>> towards AMD with no problem.
> >>>
> >>> It wasn't AMD but I recall one processor that ran CP/M and DOS, both
> >>> rather poorly. National maybe?
> >>
> >> NEC V20
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEC_V20
> >
> > And it ran them surprisingly well for the time. I had one. The 16 bit
> > V30 version was almost as fast as a 286 and had bit twiddling
> > instructions. V20 was certainly faster than the 8088 by ~10%.
> >
> > ISTR there was a bun fight over reverse engineered/stolen microcode too..
> >
> > The most impressive of the alternative chips was the Cyrix FasMath FPU
> > which was done by formal methods and found multiple bugs in the Intel
> > 387 implementation of the IEEE floating point standard in the process.
> > It was about 50% faster and also more accurate which was very useful in
> > scientific circles.
> >
> Quirks of fate. IBM didn't believe in the PC market and the 8088 was the
> cheapest way to go. And here we are...

The computer world can be obsessed with compatibility one minute, and completely ignores it the next. The hardware platform was all about compatibility for Windows, but Apple was happy porting, and porting again. They started with 68000 processors, switched to Power PC when that was a better choice, then switched to Intel when that was a better choice, all software compatible... well, more or less.

Meanwhile updating your Windows OS will break drivers for printers, cameras, and on the odd occurrence, applications themselves. New versions of the OS require you to verify your basic PC hardware is supported even though they still include the equivalent of the 8253 chip for the real time clock counter, even if it's not used.

The only consistency in the computing world is the lack of consistency, and even that is inconsistent making it consistent. Or something like that.

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:13:12 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
> On 04/25/2022 02:13 AM, Peeler wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 20:11:00 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
> > troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:
> >
> >> Actually I read alt.home.repair
> >
> > Actually you were only sucking the unwashed Scottish wanker's cock in
> > alt.home.repair again, you deranged senile Yankee bigmouth!
> >
> Ah, shit. Another newsgroup, another bozo filter...

It's also good to not respond to the wanker. Some people like Bill get their jollies from debating idiots. Some people just can't help themselves when something particularly inflammatory is said. But it is good to recognize responding has zero impact and simply refrain from doing so. I try, not always successfully. lol

I don't have any trouble ignoring Peeler. I literally don't even read his posts, so if he does by some insane chance, post something of value, I'll never know.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:07:22 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 9:50:34 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
>> On 04/21/2022 02:21 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>> > On 21/04/2022 04:31, Jasen Betts wrote:
>> >> On 2022-04-18, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> That's not a general problem. There was a period with the early Athlons
>> >>> that didn't implement some of the new Intel instructions but I've leaned
>> >>> towards AMD with no problem.
>> >>>
>> >>> It wasn't AMD but I recall one processor that ran CP/M and DOS, both
>> >>> rather poorly. National maybe?
>> >>
>> >> NEC V20
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEC_V20
>> >
>> > And it ran them surprisingly well for the time. I had one. The 16 bit
>> > V30 version was almost as fast as a 286 and had bit twiddling
>> > instructions. V20 was certainly faster than the 8088 by ~10%.
>> >
>> > ISTR there was a bun fight over reverse engineered/stolen microcode too.
>> >
>> > The most impressive of the alternative chips was the Cyrix FasMath FPU
>> > which was done by formal methods and found multiple bugs in the Intel
>> > 387 implementation of the IEEE floating point standard in the process.
>> > It was about 50% faster and also more accurate which was very useful in
>> > scientific circles.
>> >
>> Quirks of fate. IBM didn't believe in the PC market and the 8088 was the
>> cheapest way to go. And here we are...
>
> The computer world can be obsessed with compatibility one minute, and completely ignores it the next. The hardware platform was all about compatibility for Windows, but Apple was happy porting, and porting again. They started with 68000 processors, switched to Power PC when that was a better choice, then switched to Intel when that was a better choice, all software compatible... well, more or less.
>
> Meanwhile updating your Windows OS will break drivers for printers, cameras, and on the odd occurrence, applications themselves. New versions of the OS require you to verify your basic PC hardware is supported even though they still include the equivalent of the 8253 chip for the real time clock counter, even if it's not used.
>
> The only consistency in the computing world is the lack of consistency, and even that is inconsistent making it consistent. Or something like that.

Precisely the opposite is true. Pretty much everything in Windows and PC hardware has been compatible. But when Apple change something, you have to change everything. When they introduced USB, the serial ports just vanished, on the same day! No overlap so you could keep your old hardware. A fucking disgrace. I know many who changed to PC at that point on principle. Fuck me some PCs you can buy today still have serial and parallel ports on the back.

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:54:25 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:07:22 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The computer world can be obsessed with compatibility one minute, and completely ignores it the next. The hardware platform was all about compatibility for Windows, but Apple was happy porting, and porting again. They started with 68000 processors, switched to Power PC when that was a better choice, then switched to Intel when that was a better choice, all software compatible... well, more or less.
> >
> > Meanwhile updating your Windows OS will break drivers for printers, cameras, and on the odd occurrence, applications themselves.

> Precisely the opposite is true. Pretty much everything in Windows and PC hardware has been compatible. But when Apple change something, you have to change everything. When they introduced USB, the serial ports just vanished, on the same day! No overlap so you could keep your old hardware.

Not the case; Keyspan quickly came out with USB-powered single and dual serial port modules;
also there were USB/ADB dongles, every USB-equipped iMac could handle old Apple mice and keyboards.
The Wintel world similarly has USB/PS2 keyboard/mouse interfaces that are generic enough
that (for instance) barcode wedge-type scanners are still useful without a legacy keyboard port.
Apple, in fact, offered the AppleTalk-on-Ethernet support so that a networked office could
support old LocalTalk devices (printers, especially) with USB-only new hardware. I miss that
bit nowadays, because the old (AppleTalk) laser printer is still working, but the network only connects
to it while an elder OS is doing the print serving.

On Sun, 01 May 2022 21:35:26 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:54:25 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:07:22 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > The computer world can be obsessed with compatibility one minute, and completely ignores it the next. The hardware platform was all about compatibility for Windows, but Apple was happy porting, and porting again. They started with 68000 processors, switched to Power PC when that was a better choice, then switched to Intel when that was a better choice, all software compatible... well, more or less.
>> >
>> > Meanwhile updating your Windows OS will break drivers for printers, cameras, and on the odd occurrence, applications themselves.
>
>> Precisely the opposite is true. Pretty much everything in Windows and PC hardware has been compatible. But when Apple change something, you have to change everything. When they introduced USB, the serial ports just vanished, on the same day! No overlap so you could keep your old hardware.
>
> Not the case; Keyspan quickly came out with USB-powered single and dual serial port modules;
> also there were USB/ADB dongles, every USB-equipped iMac could handle old Apple mice and keyboards.

Thanks for proving my point. Lets patch up the crappy equipment with adapters.

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 8:09:33 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2022 21:35:26 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:54:25 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:07:22 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > The computer world can be obsessed with compatibility one minute, and completely ignores it the next. The hardware platform was all about compatibility for Windows, but Apple was happy porting, and porting again. They started with 68000 processors, switched to Power PC when that was a better choice, then switched to Intel when that was a better choice, all software compatible... well, more or less.
> >> >
> >> > Meanwhile updating your Windows OS will break drivers for printers, cameras, and on the odd occurrence, applications themselves.
> >
> >> Precisely the opposite is true. Pretty much everything in Windows and PC hardware has been compatible. But when Apple change something, you have to change everything. When they introduced USB, the serial ports just vanished, on the same day! No overlap so you could keep your old hardware.
> >
> > Not the case; Keyspan quickly came out with USB-powered single and dual serial port modules;
> > also there were USB/ADB dongles, every USB-equipped iMac could handle old Apple mice and keyboards.

> Thanks for proving my point. Lets patch up the crappy equipment with adapters.

Hah! That attitude is just a bout of new-paint disease, very silly.
The pre-iMac mice were a great improvement over the first generation iMac USB ones, which
were entirely symmetric; you couldn't tell by touch which way one was pointed. And, the LaserWriter II
printers were pricey, suited for a 200k page lifetime, and did NOT have USB or (usually) Ethernet
interfaces. No reason to recycle the reliable printers of the beige-Mac era; I'm
still enjoying one of 'em.

On Mon, 02 May 2022 04:42:31 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 8:09:33 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 May 2022 21:35:26 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:54:25 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:07:22 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > The computer world can be obsessed with compatibility one minute, and completely ignores it the next. The hardware platform was all about compatibility for Windows, but Apple was happy porting, and porting again. They started with 68000 processors, switched to Power PC when that was a better choice, then switched to Intel when that was a better choice, all software compatible... well, more or less.
>> >> >
>> >> > Meanwhile updating your Windows OS will break drivers for printers, cameras, and on the odd occurrence, applications themselves.
>> >
>> >> Precisely the opposite is true. Pretty much everything in Windows and PC hardware has been compatible. But when Apple change something, you have to change everything. When they introduced USB, the serial ports just vanished, on the same day! No overlap so you could keep your old hardware.
>> >
>> > Not the case; Keyspan quickly came out with USB-powered single and dual serial port modules;
>> > also there were USB/ADB dongles, every USB-equipped iMac could handle old Apple mice and keyboards.
>
>> Thanks for proving my point. Lets patch up the crappy equipment with adapters.
>
> Hah! That attitude is just a bout of new-paint disease, very silly.

According to google, you made that phrase up.

> The pre-iMac mice were a great improvement over the first generation iMac USB ones,

How can an earlier thing be an improvement over something that hadn't been made yet?

> which were entirely symmetric; you couldn't tell by touch which way one was pointed.

The cable is the clue.

And the main problem is they only had one button! And.... they had no non-button part, so what did you push against? It's like a mobile phone with no edge, everything causes you to click something.

> And, the LaserWriter II
> printers were pricey, suited for a 200k page lifetime, and did NOT have USB or (usually) Ethernet
> interfaces. No reason to recycle the reliable printers of the beige-Mac era; I'm
> still enjoying one of 'em.

Yes, I had to buy loads of adapters at work when the serial disappeared. And then find the adapters failed to work in 10% of cases.

The ethernet helped since most of ours had those or could be fitted. Since workers (and their machines) moved around a lot, and printers tended to sit in the corner of each office for a decade, it was easier to have them networked, especially if the workers wanted to print something in another section they used to work in when helping out a colleague.

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 8:49:00 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2022 04:42:31 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 8:09:33 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> On Sun, 01 May 2022 21:35:26 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > Not the case; Keyspan quickly came out with USB-powered single and dual serial port modules;
> >> > also there were USB/ADB dongles, every USB-equipped iMac could handle old Apple mice and keyboards.
> >
> >> Thanks for proving my point. Lets patch up the crappy equipment with adapters.
> >
> > Hah! That attitude is just a bout of new-paint disease, very silly.

> According to google, you made that phrase up.

Google credits me for that graceful turn of phrase? I'm flattered, but it isn't orginal.

> > The pre-iMac mice were a great improvement over the first generation iMac USB ones,
> How can an earlier thing be an improvement over something that hadn't been made yet?
> > which were entirely symmetric; you couldn't tell by touch which way one was pointed.
> The cable is the clue.

It's an improvement, when your iMac mouse gets stuffed in the bottom drawer and
you put an adapted old mouse back to work. The cable, yeah, it's a clue,
but you don't touch the cable when working.
>
> And the main problem is they only had one button! And.... they had no non-button part, so what did you push against? It's like a mobile phone with no edge, everything causes you to click something.

The hockey-puck mouse had as many buttons as anyone needed. The 'no non-button part'
describes some touchpads, and some later USB mice, but not the original USB one from Apple.

On Mon, 02 May 2022 05:06:26 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 8:49:00 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 May 2022 04:42:31 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 8:09:33 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 01 May 2022 21:35:26 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Not the case; Keyspan quickly came out with USB-powered single and dual serial port modules;
>> >> > also there were USB/ADB dongles, every USB-equipped iMac could handle old Apple mice and keyboards.
>> >
>> >> Thanks for proving my point. Lets patch up the crappy equipment with adapters.
>> >
>> > Hah! That attitude is just a bout of new-paint disease, very silly.
>
>> According to google, you made that phrase up.
>
> Google credits me for that graceful turn of phrase? I'm flattered, but it isn't orginal.

Don't give up the day job.

>> > The pre-iMac mice were a great improvement over the first generation iMac USB ones,
>> How can an earlier thing be an improvement over something that hadn't been made yet?
>> > which were entirely symmetric; you couldn't tell by touch which way one was pointed.
>> The cable is the clue.
>
> It's an improvement, when your iMac mouse gets stuffed in the bottom drawer and
> you put an adapted old mouse back to work. The cable, yeah, it's a clue,
> but you don't touch the cable when working.

It provides a subtle drag coefficient. And most people don't turn the mouse round. Unless you have evil colleagues.

>> And the main problem is they only had one button! And.... they had no non-button part, so what did you push against? It's like a mobile phone with no edge, everything causes you to click something.
>
> The hockey-puck mouse had as many buttons as anyone needed.

One?!? No context menus?

> The 'no non-button part'
> describes some touchpads, and some later USB mice, but not the original USB one from Apple.

If you do an image search for "apple mouse", you will see most of them have the entire top as a button. How the fuck were you supposed to operate that? Lean on it? Maybe they were made for fat Merkins with oversize flabby fingers?

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:36:54 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2022 05:06:26 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 8:49:00 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> On Mon, 02 May 2022 04:42:31 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > The pre-iMac mice were a great improvement over the first generation iMac USB ones,
> >> > which were entirely symmetric; you couldn't tell by touch which way one was pointed.

> >> How can an earlier thing be an improvement over something that hadn't been made yet?

> > It's an improvement, when your iMac mouse gets stuffed in the bottom drawer

> >> The cable is the clue.

.... but you keep eyes on the screen, you put one hand on the mouse. You don't
palpate to find the cord before you start using your pointing device. All users
knew this was a bogosity.

> It provides a subtle drag coefficient. And most people don't turn the mouse round. Unless you have evil colleagues.
> >> And the main problem is they only had one button! And.... they had no non-button part, so what did you push against? It's like a mobile phone with no edge, everything causes you to click something.
> >
> > The hockey-puck mouse had as many buttons as anyone needed.
> One?!? No context menus?

Yeah, one. With your other hand, you can shift/option/fn/control/command if you need
to use a modifier. Point, click: those are the mouse functions.

> > The 'no non-button part'
> > describes some touchpads, and some later USB mice, but not the original USB one from Apple.
> If you do an image search for "apple mouse", you will see most of them have the entire top as a button. How the fuck were you supposed to operate that? Lean on it? Maybe they were made for fat Merkins with oversize flabby fingers?

The recent mice have touch-sensitive surfaces that give three 'buttons' which (confusingly)
are software-assignable in many ways. I'm unimpressed by the ergonomics, but I've also seen
nine-button mice which were MUCH less useful (three numbers, three colors, three symbols).

My Apple trackpads are one-button. If software can't handle that, it's the programmers' fault.

On Tue, 03 May 2022 23:38:55 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:36:54 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 May 2022 05:06:26 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 8:49:00 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 02 May 2022 04:42:31 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > The pre-iMac mice were a great improvement over the first generation iMac USB ones,
>> >> > which were entirely symmetric; you couldn't tell by touch which way one was pointed.
>
>> >> How can an earlier thing be an improvement over something that hadn't been made yet?
>
>> > It's an improvement, when your iMac mouse gets stuffed in the bottom drawer
>
>> >> The cable is the clue.
>
> ... but you keep eyes on the screen, you put one hand on the mouse. You don't
> palpate to find the cord before you start using your pointing device. All users
> knew this was a bogosity.

I didn't mean you actually touched the cord, but you can easily feel it pulling at the mouse. Now unless that mouse is circular, I'd be hard pressed to accidentally rotate it 180 degrees.

>> It provides a subtle drag coefficient. And most people don't turn the mouse round. Unless you have evil colleagues.
>> >> And the main problem is they only had one button! And.... they had no non-button part, so what did you push against? It's like a mobile phone with no edge, everything causes you to click something.
>> >
>> > The hockey-puck mouse had as many buttons as anyone needed.
>> One?!? No context menus?
>
> Yeah, one. With your other hand, you can shift/option/fn/control/command if you need
> to use a modifier. Point, click: those are the mouse functions.

Why use two hands when you can use one? A second button is an absolute must for any computer.

>> > The 'no non-button part'
>> > describes some touchpads, and some later USB mice, but not the original USB one from Apple.
>> If you do an image search for "apple mouse", you will see most of them have the entire top as a button. How the fuck were you supposed to operate that? Lean on it? Maybe they were made for fat Merkins with oversize flabby fingers?
>
> The recent mice have touch-sensitive surfaces that give three 'buttons' which (confusingly)
> are software-assignable in many ways.

And just how do you know where the border between each button is?

> I'm unimpressed by the ergonomics, but I've also seen
> nine-button mice which were MUCH less useful (three numbers, three colors, three symbols).

I don't have 9 fingers on one hand. Gamers seem to like that sort of thing though. Not sure how they remember which weapon they've assigned to which button though.