Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > BIOS Reaching Its Limits

Reply
Thread Tools

BIOS Reaching Its Limits

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2010
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Crash McBash wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:09:28 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>
>>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Crash McBash
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Poll-select as a networking technology is hugely more efficient by
>>> design than networks where terminal key depressions are seen by the
>>> server CPU ...

>>
>>Interesting use of the term “network”. Simple terminal connections were
>>not what we called “networks”.

>
> How can you have a 'terminal' without a 'network' to connect it to a
> computer?


A simple wire will do.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matty F
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2010
On Aug 11, 7:37 pm, Enkidu <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 11/08/10 11:01, Matty F wrote:
>
> > On Aug 10, 10:25 pm, Enkidu<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On 10/08/10 18:23, Matty F wrote:

>
> >>>> Ah ... terminals. I remember them well.

>
> >>> Well, they looked similar to the computer monitors that we use
> >>> today. Except that they had green text on black and graphics were
> >>> minimal. Quite adequate for use in many businesses. The IBM
> >>> terminals/monitors weighed so much that two IBM engineers were
> >>> needed to move one.Of course an IBM engineer was required to plug
> >>> the monitor in.

>
> >> IIRC (and I'm not sure that I do) they were powered by the cable
> >> that also carried the signal, that is they only had one cable.

>
> > There appear to be the terminals that we used, IBM 3270:
> >http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/3270.html

>
> > I don't remember the cable. I don't think the terminals could be
> > unplugged while the controller was connected to the mainframe. The
> > 3270 accumulated data until Enter was pressed. That saved
> > interrupting the mainframe for each key press.

>
> Almost correct. The Enter key was only one of a small set of keys called
> AIDs (can't remember what it stood for) such as the PF keys, enter and a
> few others. Hitting one of these keys sent the buffer to the mainframe.


Well I thought I would keep it simple for people who know nothing of
computer history and see Windows as the answer to everything.
I'd like to repeat that in the 1970s we had complex computer systems
that had fraction of a second response times, and modern systems seem
to be slower.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matty F
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2010
On Aug 11, 7:40 pm, Sweetpea <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Now PCs using M$ Windows need to be very fast high-spec'd multi-core
> machines just so that a current M$ email client doesn't have noticeable
> lag between typing a key and seeing the corresponding character appear on
> the screen.


In the 1980s we used really slow small computers and there was no
noticeable delay between pressing a key and the character appearing on
the screen. I think programmers these days use really horribly
inefficient languages and compilers or have no idea what they are
doing.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2010
In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
wrote:

> In the 1980s we used really slow small computers and there was no
> noticeable delay between pressing a key and the character appearing on
> the screen.


Depends on what you were doing. When we had a whole bunch of people running
full-screen editors that were doing processing and repainting on every
keystroke, we noticed the delay, all right.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matty F
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2010
On Aug 11, 10:02 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
> wrote:
>
> > In the 1980s we used really slow small computers and there was no
> > noticeable delay between pressing a key and the character appearing on
> > the screen.

>
> Depends on what you were doing. When we had a whole bunch of people running
> full-screen editors that were doing processing and repainting on every
> keystroke, we noticed the delay, all right.


We wrote our own operating system and even the disk accessing
software. We used absolutely no code written by anyone else.
It was exceedingly efficient. There were no noticeable delays.
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2010
On 11/08/2010 9:09 p.m., Matty F wrote:
> On Aug 11, 7:40 pm, Sweetpea<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Now PCs using M$ Windows need to be very fast high-spec'd multi-core
>> machines just so that a current M$ email client doesn't have noticeable
>> lag between typing a key and seeing the corresponding character appear on
>> the screen.

>
> In the 1980s we used really slow small computers and there was no
> noticeable delay between pressing a key and the character appearing on
> the screen. I think programmers these days use really horribly
> inefficient languages and compilers or have no idea what they are
> doing.


In the 1970s we used really large slow computers and there was no delay
between pressing a key and the character appearing on the screen so that
absolutely proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the kids these days have
no idea ...
Hey has anyone noticed the echo ?
Its like talkback radio.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2010
On 11/08/10 20:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<(E-Mail Removed) >, Crash McBash wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:09:28 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>>
>>> In message<(E-Mail Removed) >, Crash McBash
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Poll-select as a networking technology is hugely more efficient by
>>>> design than networks where terminal key depressions are seen by the
>>>> server CPU ...
>>>
>>> Interesting use of the term “network”. Simple terminal connections were
>>> not what we called “networks”.

>>
>> How can you have a 'terminal' without a 'network' to connect it to a
>> computer?

>
> A simple wire will do.
>

Interesting definition. So the mainframe network that we had, which
consisted of terminals connected to a cluster controller and connected
directly to the mainframes or via a network controller running NCP, all
using synchronous connections was not really a network in your opinion?

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2010
In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
wrote:

> On Aug 11, 10:02 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Matty F wrote:
>>
>> > In the 1980s we used really slow small computers and there was no
>> > noticeable delay between pressing a key and the character appearing on
>> > the screen.

>>
>> Depends on what you were doing. When we had a whole bunch of people
>> running full-screen editors that were doing processing and repainting on
>> every keystroke, we noticed the delay, all right.

>
> We wrote our own operating system and even the disk accessing
> software. We used absolutely no code written by anyone else.
> It was exceedingly efficient. There were no noticeable delays.


Did you have any full-screen text editor comparable in power to, say, TECO?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matty F
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2010
On Aug 12, 12:26 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 10:02 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> > <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:

>
> >> In message
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >> Matty F wrote:

>
> >> > In the 1980s we used really slow small computers and there was no
> >> > noticeable delay between pressing a key and the character appearing on
> >> > the screen.

>
> >> Depends on what you were doing. When we had a whole bunch of people
> >> running full-screen editors that were doing processing and repainting on
> >> every keystroke, we noticed the delay, all right.

>
> > We wrote our own operating system and even the disk accessing
> > software. We used absolutely no code written by anyone else.
> > It was exceedingly efficient. There were no noticeable delays.

>
> Did you have any full-screen text editor comparable in power to, say, TECO?


I loathe command languages so no we didn't have anything like TECO.
From 1974 we had an ordinary full-screen editor somewhat like MS
Word.
In 1982 that was rewritten to have many more features and to take
advantage of the logging and recovery feature so that only the changed
lines were logged instead of saving the whole file like most systems.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2010
In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>, Matty F
wrote:

> I loathe command languages so no we didn't have anything like TECO.


No programmable text-manipulation tools? Shame.

But with no “command languages”, how did you issue your commands, then?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Its a bird, its a plane, its.. um, an Attribute based System? thunk Ruby 14 04-03-2010 10:08 AM
Its a bird, its a plane, its.. um, an Attribute based System? thunk Ruby 0 04-01-2010 10:25 PM
Its a bird, its a plane, no ummm, its a Ruide thunk Ruby 1 03-30-2010 11:10 AM
EIGRP and its limits Dennis Breithaupt Cisco 2 10-11-2005 08:09 PM
Urgent: restrict textfield events on reaching its maxlength Muralidhar Javascript 0 08-07-2003 02:22 PM



Advertisments