can x^2 + y^2 = square root of -4?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Solar^, Jan 28, 2006.

  1. Solar^

    Toolman Tim Guest

    In Blinky the Shark spewed forth:
    In the snow.
    Toolman Tim, Jan 29, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Solar^

    Pee Jay Guest

    Well when I first started work we were issued with either a slide rule
    or an abacus!!!!
    Pee Jay, Jan 29, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Abacus? You must've gone to a private school. We got a stick, and had to
    bring our own dirt.
    Blinky the Shark, Jan 29, 2006
  4. Solar^

    Fred Kasner Guest

    I even had a car once that had a crank starter as well as electric one. It
    was a 1950 English Ford. One very cold morning it wouldn't start even when
    fully choked. So I trotted out the hand crank and it started. Try that with
    a 400 HP 6 liter engine with a 9.0 to 1 compression ratio. Could even a
    heavy weight weight lifter do that?
    Fred Kasner, Jan 29, 2006
  5. Solar^

    Fred Kasner Guest

    Fred Kasner, Jan 29, 2006
  6. Solar^

    Martik Guest

    Can't remember how many Cobol programs I wrote on punched cards!

    Remember the "program card" wrapped on the drum for the IBM or Univac punch
    card machine?

    My favourite was watching a 4 reel tape sort in action - that was too
    Martik, Jan 29, 2006
  7. Solar^

    Toolman Tim Guest

    In Martik spewed forth:
    Whoa - gotta video clip?
    Toolman Tim, Jan 29, 2006
  8. Solar^

    Martik Guest

    Wish I did.

    This might interest you (from wikipedia):

    "Merge sort is so inherently sequential that it's practical to run it using
    slow tape drives as input and output devices. It requires very little
    memory, and the memory required does not change with the number of data
    elements. If you have four tape drives, it works as follows:

    1.. divide the data to be sorted in half and put half on each of two tapes
    2.. merge individual pairs of records from the two tapes; write two-record
    chunks alternately to each of the two output tapes
    3.. merge the two-record chunks from the two output tapes into four-record
    chunks; write these alternately to the original two input tapes
    4.. merge the four-record chunks into eight-record chunks; write these
    alternately to the original two output tapes
    5.. repeat until you have one chunk containing all the data, sorted ---
    that is, for log n passes, where n is the number of records.
    On tape drives that can run both backwards and forwards, you can run merge
    passes in both directions, avoiding rewind time. For the same reason it is
    also very useful for sorting data on disk that is too large to fit entirely
    into primary memory."

    Remember in those days 64K was a lot of memory.
    Martik, Jan 30, 2006
  9. Solar^

    Toolman Tim Guest

    In Martik spewed forth:
    Oh yeah - I used to work in 16K. Sorts were tough! When I finally got a
    machine with 64K I was ecstatic. That was a TRS80 Model III. Later, they
    came out with one that had 128K but a user could only access the extra 64
    with some fun direct programming. I could do BIG sorts then <g>! Since these
    were early "desktops" there were no external tape bays...or even 4 floppy
    drives (which could have been used in a similar fashion) so most sorting was
    all done in RAM. I normally used a Shell-Metzner sort - small code size,
    fast execution, excellent stuff. Nowadays, I couldn't even begin to write
    code :)
    Toolman Tim, Jan 30, 2006
  10. Hey, waddaya think I am, old or something? :)
    And now we watch the clothes tumble around in the dryer. Where did we go
    wrong? :)
    Blinky the Shark, Jan 30, 2006
  11. Solar^

    Martik Guest

    I discovered the Shell sort back in my Honeywell mainframe days. But for
    large sorts we used the 6ft high
    tape drives. IIRC 20-30k records would take 1/2 hr to sort. When we finally
    got the 20MB disk drives that were the size of a washing machine we started
    doing disksorts. We programmers would have fun by allocating the sort work
    and source files on opposite ends of the platter so the heads would go

    Check out these sort comparisons: (click on the horizontal bars to compare
    Martik, Jan 30, 2006
  12. Solar^

    Leythos Guest

    I had a small catalog with 30mm records in it, it was a simple task, but
    it took forever. In those days I had a simple 386sx16 and a single
    drive, it would run non-stop for 20+ days, all due to drive head
    movement overhead.

    I got smart after the first day and bought a second 30MB disk and
    managed to do the sort in 13 hours.

    It's funny how people don't understand head movement performance or
    fragmentation performance on todays computers.
    Leythos, Jan 30, 2006
  13. Solar^ wrote:

    I'm not sure if this is the forum for this but here goes:
    Do computers worry you?
    Liza Smorgaborgsson, Jan 30, 2006
  14. Solar^ wrote:

    I'm not sure I understand you fully.
    Liza Smorgaborgsson, Jan 30, 2006
  15. Budweiser wrote:

    Do you sometimes wish you were looking for?
    Liza Smorgaborgsson, Jan 30, 2006
  16. philo wrote:

    Does thinking of a lot of it from when you was in engineering school bring anything else to mind?
    Liza Smorgaborgsson, Jan 30, 2006
  17. Mike Easter wrote:

    Tell me more about that.
    Liza Smorgaborgsson, Jan 30, 2006
  18. Blinky the Shark wrote:

    Does this topic make you feel angry ?
    Liza Smorgaborgsson, Jan 30, 2006
  19. Gordon wrote:
    We were discussing you -- not me.
    Liza Smorgaborgsson, Jan 30, 2006
  20. old jon wrote:

    Does talking about this bother you?
    Liza Smorgaborgsson, Jan 30, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.