A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stupid computer reviews



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 17th 17, 03:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Stupid computer reviews

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:


"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943


what's amazing is how someone so stupid could be president of ibm.



That's not stupidity, it's perception. What a "computer" was in 1943
was a handwired to task monster. Change programs? Start re-wiring for
a few days and de-bugging for many more.


sure, but anyone with even half a clue would have realized technology
would advance beyond that.

thinking that's how it would always be is why it's so stupid.
  #22  
Old September 17th 17, 03:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Stupid computer reviews

On 2017-09-17 05:51, Paul Carmichael wrote:
El 16/09/17 a las 19:50, nospam escribió:
In article , Paul Carmichael
wrote:

I had an ISA memory expansion board designed for a 386 that I was able
to get working in the machine and expanded the memory to
16megs...that's
the maximum amount a 286 can address. I did it just for the sake of
doing it.

That said, would it have been possible to put 16 megs of memory in
a 286
at the time it was built, probably only Bill Gates could have
afforded it!

it might have been possible, but it wasn't particularly useful because
of segmented memory, a problem inherent to x86 back then.

I was programming back then, and XMS was useful. Not very fast
though. A lot
faster than MFM hard drives, so better than "virtual memory".


it was still a royal pain in the ass and comparing it to vm is silly.


4k pages. Not that different.

x86 didn't get a linear address space until much later.


I was an assembler programmer. Huge pointers were for girls. Real men
used segmentffset. Everything had its place and 64k segments were
plenty big enough for most stuff.


Been there. Assembler and mixed Pascal/assembler. (Even a mixed
Pascal/Fortran project - but that was on a VAX-785).
Today I use Pascal (fpc) and the 64k segment limit is happily gone. In
32 bit I can allocate 3 GB of heap w/o a worry and build monster trees
or other linked lists that allow for near instant location/sort of data
in myriad ways. If I compile for 64 bit, well, then ...

X86 never got a flat memory model. Actually, I suppose that .com
programs were flat model in their way :-)


They were limited. I had projects in the late 80's/early 90's that
needed a lot of programming care to stay inside the 64k segments. Mind
you: CS, DS, ES, SS @ 64kB each made for some fairly large program
spaces if needed on a bare bones 286 machine with enough memory.

Also Turbo Pascal supported code swapping so a careful selection of
"swappable" code sections could be handy and efficient even in a real
time case.

If you were brave and clever you could even use the opposite end of the
stack space temporarily setting ES equal to the SS and just taking care
to start at 0 and allocate upwards (which was natural for statically
assigned memory). That section of code would push the ES onto the
stack, copy the SS to ES, then use the lower portion of that segment.
Pop the ES when exiting that code block. I did that experimentally but
never in a "deliverable".
  #23  
Old September 17th 17, 03:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Stupid computer reviews

On 2017-09-17 10:10, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:


"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943

what's amazing is how someone so stupid could be president of ibm.



That's not stupidity, it's perception. What a "computer" was in 1943
was a handwired to task monster. Change programs? Start re-wiring for
a few days and de-bugging for many more.


sure, but anyone with even half a clue would have realized technology
would advance beyond that.


Thousands of well clued people of the day never predicted it. Why
should Watson?

To think some executive of IBM in wartime would see the future of
computers in a commercial context, at a time when Turing and Von Neumann
were still working out the concept and details is too much of a stretch.
  #24  
Old September 17th 17, 03:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Stupid computer reviews

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943

what's amazing is how someone so stupid could be president of ibm.


That's not stupidity, it's perception. What a "computer" was in 1943
was a handwired to task monster. Change programs? Start re-wiring for
a few days and de-bugging for many more.


sure, but anyone with even half a clue would have realized technology
would advance beyond that.


Thousands of well clued people of the day never predicted it. Why
should Watson?


they weren't very clued.

it doesn't take much of a clue to realize that things would not remain
stagnant.

To think some executive of IBM in wartime would see the future of
computers in a commercial context, at a time when Turing and Von Neumann
were still working out the concept and details is too much of a stretch.


not at all.
  #25  
Old September 17th 17, 04:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Stupid computer reviews

On 2017-09-17 10:45, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan
Browne wrote:

"I think there is a world market for maybe five
computers." Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943

what's amazing is how someone so stupid could be president of
ibm.


That's not stupidity, it's perception. What a "computer" was
in 1943 was a handwired to task monster. Change programs?
Start re-wiring for a few days and de-bugging for many more.

sure, but anyone with even half a clue would have realized
technology would advance beyond that.


Thousands of well clued people of the day never predicted it. Why
should Watson?


they weren't very clued.

it doesn't take much of a clue to realize that things would not
remain stagnant.

To think some executive of IBM in wartime would see the future of
computers in a commercial context, at a time when Turing and Von
Neumann were still working out the concept and details is too much
of a stretch.


not at all.


Hindsight and all that... laughable premise.
  #26  
Old September 17th 17, 08:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 444
Default Stupid computer reviews

On 09/16/2017 07:00 PM, Savageduck wrote:
ever seen so many indians in all my life.
George A. Custer, 1876.

You, and your damn theater tickets.
Abraham Lincoln to Mary Todd Lincoln, 1865.





Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
  #27  
Old September 17th 17, 11:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Stupid computer reviews

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:06:08 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2017-09-16 20:16, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943


what's amazing is how someone so stupid could be president of ibm.



That's not stupidity, it's perception. What a "computer" was in 1943
was a handwired to task monster. Change programs? Start re-wiring for
a few days and de-bugging for many more.

IBM did not make Turing/Von Neumann machines at the time (nobody did)
and nobody at the business end of the stick had vision about what they
could do. It was all tabulation and automation - very specific to task
and IBM made oodles at it.

The few "computers" that existed in 1943 were hardwire programmed
(ENIAC for example) to do a specific thing (ballistics, or some such).
Re-programming (not reloading) was an arduous task taking many days.

The business of IBM was to support business. The method of it was not
important. Indeed that's IBM today. They are not a computer company.
They are a business information company. They never fell victim to the
buggy whip.


There was also Colossus http://tinyurl.com/ydap2f59
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #28  
Old September 17th 17, 11:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Stupid computer reviews

On 9/17/2017 6:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:06:08 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2017-09-16 20:16, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943

what's amazing is how someone so stupid could be president of ibm.



That's not stupidity, it's perception. What a "computer" was in 1943
was a handwired to task monster. Change programs? Start re-wiring for
a few days and de-bugging for many more.

IBM did not make Turing/Von Neumann machines at the time (nobody did)
and nobody at the business end of the stick had vision about what they
could do. It was all tabulation and automation - very specific to task
and IBM made oodles at it.

The few "computers" that existed in 1943 were hardwire programmed
(ENIAC for example) to do a specific thing (ballistics, or some such).
Re-programming (not reloading) was an arduous task taking many days.

The business of IBM was to support business. The method of it was not
important. Indeed that's IBM today. They are not a computer company.
They are a business information company. They never fell victim to the
buggy whip.


There was also Colossus http://tinyurl.com/ydap2f59

Hmm, wrong Colossus. you had me thinking "Colossus: The Forbin Project"

Then that got me thinking of the 1950's TV show "Top Secret"
~
The show intro:
~
"This is the automatic mass integer calculator known to it's friends as
AMIC. It can solve a complex mathematical problem in 30 seconds, that
would take 100 mathematicians, working continuously around the clock 30
years..." And then of course, they introduced the crew.
~~
Damn, I seem to be getting old....
==
--
Later...
Ron C
--

  #29  
Old September 18th 17, 04:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Stupid computer reviews

On 9/16/2017 8:16 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943


what's amazing is how someone so stupid could be president of ibm.


He was far from stupid. f you owned stock in IBM, I guess you would have
preferred that he announce to the world that technology will improve.
Don't get bogged down in contracts with us,. etc.

--
PeterN
  #30  
Old September 18th 17, 04:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Stupid computer reviews

On 9/17/2017 9:56 AM, Paul Carmichael wrote:
El 17/09/17 a las 12:49, nospam escribió:
In article , Paul Carmichael
wrote:

I had an ISA memory expansion board designed for a 386 that I was
able
to get working in the machine and expanded the memory to
16megs...that's
the maximum amount a 286 can address. I did it just for the sake of
doing it.

That said, would it have been possible to put 16 megs of memory
in a 286
at the time it was built, probably only Bill Gates could have
afforded
it!

it might have been possible, but it wasn't particularly useful
because
of segmented memory, a problem inherent to x86 back then.

I was programming back then, and XMS was useful. Not very fast
though. A
lot
faster than MFM hard drives, so better than "virtual memory".

it was still a royal pain in the ass and comparing it to vm is silly.

4k pages. Not that different.


virtual memory is completely different.

x86 didn't get a linear address space until much later.

I was an assembler programmer. Huge pointers were for girls. Real men
used
segmentffset.


then it was even more of a pain in the ass.


My donkey's fine thanks.

Everything had its place and 64k segments were plenty big enough for
most
stuff.


except for stuff that spanned 64k boundaries, like graphics or database
apps.

X86 never got a flat memory model. Actually, I suppose that .com
programs were flat model
in their way :-)


yes it did.


Ok. Kind of. Selectorffset programming felt much like segmentffset
programming. But with giant segments. Why the hell am I talking to you
about programming? I'll stop now.


We have seen more of his programs than his photos.

Oops! I forgot.

--
PeterN
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju Grainne Gillespie 35mm Photo Equipment 0 November 14th 04 02:01 AM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju Grainne Gillespie Digital Photography 0 November 14th 04 01:58 AM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju Rev Brian In The Darkroom 5 November 13th 04 03:27 AM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju Sander Vesik 35mm Photo Equipment 2 November 12th 04 10:09 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju Bob Harrington 35mm Photo Equipment 0 November 10th 04 02:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.