uffda.
 

yeah, sure.

I, on the other hand prefer a visual
memory method.

Shen

uffda.
 

LOL We always knew all those hours walking the bridgewings weren't
wasted!!

otn

Shen44 wrote:
Subject: uffda.
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 03/12/2004 16:41 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

answer is: 65024

literally, done in my head that fast.

no smoke, no mirrors.

however, there was a "trick", two actually.



ewwww , tricky...you needed to use tricks. I, on the other hand prefer a visual
memory method.

Shen

uffda.
 

Subject: uffda.
From: (JAXAshby)

Gee, Jax, I'm sorry your "visual memory" capabilities aren't exactly up to
mine.... we do have our individual crosses to bear, don't we. (statement, not
question)

Shen


yeah, sure.

I, on the other hand prefer a visual
memory method.

Shen

uffda.
 

bject: uffda.
From: otnmbrd
Date: 03/12/2004 17:34 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net

LOL We always knew all those hours walking the bridgewings weren't
wasted!!

otn

Yup. I started with double digits and worked up from there.

Shen

uffda.
 

Subject: uffda.
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 03/12/2004 17:28 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

bull. there is no intuitive way to calculate the product of those numbers in
that way, any more than you can calc a 4th root of a number algabraicly with
a
pencil and paper.

Sorry Jax, but "intuitive" has nothing to do with it. As stated, it's a visual
memory thing that I do that has nothing to do with tricks of multiplication
..... it's very straight forward and simple (but probably beyond your limited
reasoning and visualization skills)

There ARE ways to calc that product in one's head, but not in the fashion you
claimed. None.

sorry, dude.

Hey, don't apologize. As stated, my method is beyond your abilities and
probable comprehension .... actually, I can't explain it to myself, other than
to say it's a visual memory thingy.

Shen

uffda.
 

bull. not even remotely possible. there is no relationship between the
numbers and the product as you claim.

Or ...

.... would you like to make mention of the relationship?

We will wait no more than a few hours.

bull. there is no intuitive way to calculate the product of those numbers
in
that way, any more than you can calc a 4th root of a number algabraicly with
a
pencil and paper.

Sorry Jax, but "intuitive" has nothing to do with it. As stated, it's a
visual
memory thing that I do that has nothing to do with tricks of multiplication
.... it's very straight forward and simple (but probably beyond your limited
reasoning and visualization skills)

There ARE ways to calc that product in one's head, but not in the fashion
you
claimed. None.

sorry, dude.

Hey, don't apologize. As stated, my method is beyond your abilities and
probable comprehension .... actually, I can't explain it to myself, other
than
to say it's a visual memory thingy.

Shen

uffda.
 

What's so hard about doing 4th roots with pencil and paper?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
bull. there is no intuitive way to calculate the product of those numbers in
that way, any more than you can calc a 4th root of a number algabraicly with a
pencil and paper.

uffda.
 

wanna show us how?

]okay group, watch now how jeffies blathers on for days telling us that what
with his degree in physics and all that he can do it easily. if I say he can
not he will get all snippy. he couldn't tell us how RDF worked how is he going
to tell us how to do 4th roots with pencil and paper.]

jeffies? do note the word algebraicly was there. in other words, SWAGing is
not the answer.

What's so hard about doing 4th roots with pencil and paper?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
bull. there is no intuitive way to calculate the product of those numbers
in
that way, any more than you can calc a 4th root of a number algabraicly
with a
pencil and paper.

uffda.
 

Well, I wouldn't say its so easy that jaxie can follow, but there are all sorts
of techniques that have been developed over the years. Computers don't use
"magic" to calculate complex functions, there are often just programmed to
follow algorithms developed many years ago by people like Newton. Jaxie forgets
that this is what I did for a living.

To compute a 4th root, using Newton's method:

Assume you want to compute x = a^(1/4)
Make a guess at the answer, call it x1. Then compute the next guess, x2, as
follows:
x2 = x1 - (x1^4 - a)/(4 * x1^3)
iterate again as
x3 = x2 - (x2^4 - a)/(4 * x2^3)

When the results get sufficiently close, you have an answer. Often only 3 or 4
iterations are needed. Similar techniques can be used to calculate the roots of
polynomials.

I used the square root version of this a number of times. In the days before
"Floating Point Units" in computers considerable time savings (a factor of 10 or
more) could be had by adjusting the algorithms to match the input data and
desired accuracy.




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
wanna show us how?

]okay group, watch now how jeffies blathers on for days telling us that what
with his degree in physics and all that he can do it easily. if I say he can
not he will get all snippy. he couldn't tell us how RDF worked how is he
going
to tell us how to do 4th roots with pencil and paper.]

jeffies? do note the word algebraicly was there. in other words, SWAGing is
not the answer.

What's so hard about doing 4th roots with pencil and paper?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
bull. there is no intuitive way to calculate the product of those numbers
in
that way, any more than you can calc a 4th root of a number algabraicly
with a
pencil and paper.

uffda.
 

jeffies, that is NOT algebraic. Ask your wife to explain the term to you.

a bit of a hint for you jeffies. algebraic would give you precision to as many
decimals was you might wish to calc with accuracy to the next to last digit
calc'd.

go ahead. tell us how to do that with a pencil and paper. Tell you what.
Tell us how to do square roots *algebraically* with a pencil and paper.

ask your wife to explain square roots.

Well, I wouldn't say its so easy that jaxie can follow, but there are all
sorts
of techniques that have been developed over the years. Computers don't use
"magic" to calculate complex functions, there are often just programmed to
follow algorithms developed many years ago by people like Newton. Jaxie
forgets
that this is what I did for a living.

To compute a 4th root, using Newton's method:

Assume you want to compute x = a^(1/4)
Make a guess at the answer, call it x1. Then compute the next guess, x2, as
follows:
x2 = x1 - (x1^4 - a)/(4 * x1^3)
iterate again as
x3 = x2 - (x2^4 - a)/(4 * x2^3)

When the results get sufficiently close, you have an answer. Often only 3 or
4
iterations are needed. Similar techniques can be used to calculate the roots
of
polynomials.

I used the square root version of this a number of times. In the days before
"Floating Point Units" in computers considerable time savings (a factor of 10
or
more) could be had by adjusting the algorithms to match the input data and
desired accuracy.




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
wanna show us how?

]okay group, watch now how jeffies blathers on for days telling us that
what
with his degree in physics and all that he can do it easily. if I say he
can
not he will get all snippy. he couldn't tell us how RDF worked how is he
going
to tell us how to do 4th roots with pencil and paper.]

jeffies? do note the word algebraicly was there. in other words, SWAGing
is
not the answer.

What's so hard about doing 4th roots with pencil and paper?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
bull. there is no intuitive way to calculate the product of those
numbers
in
that way, any more than you can calc a 4th root of a number algabraicly
with a
pencil and paper.

uffda.
 

In the days before
"Floating Point Units" in computers

floating point computers have been around since the 1950's. I have seen early
60's such machines still in use.

accounting computers used integer arithemtic because the calcs were quicker.

If your coding skills were 0.1% of what you claim you could easily use an
interger machine to get as many decimal places as you wanted. It was commonly
done, by freshmen in college.

uffda.
 

Well, I said this would be too complicated for jaxie to understand. Newton's
method converges quickly and can easily be worked to the desired accuracy, just
like the normal method for doing long division.

Sorry jaxie, as for square roots, one math lesson a day is all I'm willing to
give someone incapable of learning. OK, you can just iterate on:
x2 = x1 - (x1^2 - a)/(2 * x1)
A tad more tedious than the method taught in high school, but easier to program.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, that is NOT algebraic. Ask your wife to explain the term to you.

a bit of a hint for you jeffies. algebraic would give you precision to as
many
decimals was you might wish to calc with accuracy to the next to last digit
calc'd.

go ahead. tell us how to do that with a pencil and paper. Tell you what.
Tell us how to do square roots *algebraically* with a pencil and paper.

ask your wife to explain square roots.

Well, I wouldn't say its so easy that jaxie can follow, but there are all
sorts
of techniques that have been developed over the years. Computers don't use
"magic" to calculate complex functions, there are often just programmed to
follow algorithms developed many years ago by people like Newton. Jaxie
forgets
that this is what I did for a living.

To compute a 4th root, using Newton's method:

Assume you want to compute x = a^(1/4)
Make a guess at the answer, call it x1. Then compute the next guess, x2, as
follows:
x2 = x1 - (x1^4 - a)/(4 * x1^3)
iterate again as
x3 = x2 - (x2^4 - a)/(4 * x2^3)

When the results get sufficiently close, you have an answer. Often only 3 or
4
iterations are needed. Similar techniques can be used to calculate the roots
of
polynomials.

I used the square root version of this a number of times. In the days before
"Floating Point Units" in computers considerable time savings (a factor of 10
or
more) could be had by adjusting the algorithms to match the input data and
desired accuracy.




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
wanna show us how?

]okay group, watch now how jeffies blathers on for days telling us that
what
with his degree in physics and all that he can do it easily. if I say he
can
not he will get all snippy. he couldn't tell us how RDF worked how is he
going
to tell us how to do 4th roots with pencil and paper.]

jeffies? do note the word algebraicly was there. in other words, SWAGing
is
not the answer.

What's so hard about doing 4th roots with pencil and paper?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
bull. there is no intuitive way to calculate the product of those
numbers
in
that way, any more than you can calc a 4th root of a number algabraicly
with a
pencil and paper.

uffda.
 

You clearly know little of computer hardware. I'm sure you'll claim now you
sold them for a living, which would make this all the more pathetic. While
hardware floating point units (FPU's) were available it was expensive and not
used by those on a tight budget. The smaller computers I worked on (Data
General Nova's) usually didn't have FPU's so I programmed FP software manually.
Even when they did have FP, it was often much faster to work in integer space.
Further, the early FPU's didn't do trig or roots, they still had to be
programmed manually.

Intel floating point wasn't standard until the mid-90's. (Was it the 386 or 486
where all CPU's had FP?) The graphics package I developed at Lotus in '92 was
done in "fixed point" because it had to run quickly on all Windows machines.

Another problem is that some FPU didn't support the mantissa precision or the
exponent range desired. When DEC came out with the VAX they pushed hard to
place one where I worked, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. However,
the native FP format only had limited exponent range (10^38?). We insisted on
more range, so they invented a new format with very high range and precision.
At the time, it was the largest VAX installation - I think there was 6 megabytes
of main memory!


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
In the days before
"Floating Point Units" in computers

floating point computers have been around since the 1950's. I have seen early
60's such machines still in use.

accounting computers used integer arithemtic because the calcs were quicker.

If your coding skills were 0.1% of what you claim you could easily use an
interger machine to get as many decimal places as you wanted. It was commonly
done, by freshmen in college.

uffda.
 

Subject: uffda.
From: (JAXAshby)

JAX, JAx, Jax .... first, you need to learn to think, then you need to learn to
think of possibilities and not be so concerned by doing things only by rote.
(might help you to understand how to take bearings using a magnetic compass).


bull. not even remotely possible. there is no relationship between the
numbers and the product as you claim.

The numbers, when strung together, created the correct total .... or didn't you
realize that? (oops, sorry ....question)



Or ...

... would you like to make mention of the relationship?

see above.


We will wait no more than a few hours.

Hell, the way you reason, it will be next week before you can see a possible
relationship.
Ya know, Jax, I'll bet you're the only one who didn't understand the
possibilities in my first post on this issue.

Shen

uffda.
 

jeffies, I knew how to use newton to *****approximate***** square roots using
an ADDING MACHINE several decades ago.

That was not the question.

Go back and read the question AGAIN, this time ask your wife to help you.

Well, I said this would be too complicated for jaxie to understand. Newton's
method converges quickly and can easily be worked to the desired accuracy,
just
like the normal method for doing long division.

Sorry jaxie, as for square roots, one math lesson a day is all I'm willing to
give someone incapable of learning. OK, you can just iterate on:
x2 = x1 - (x1^2 - a)/(2 * x1)
A tad more tedious than the method taught in high school, but easier to
program.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, that is NOT algebraic. Ask your wife to explain the term to you.

a bit of a hint for you jeffies. algebraic would give you precision to as
many
decimals was you might wish to calc with accuracy to the next to last digit
calc'd.

go ahead. tell us how to do that with a pencil and paper. Tell you what.
Tell us how to do square roots *algebraically* with a pencil and paper.

ask your wife to explain square roots.

Well, I wouldn't say its so easy that jaxie can follow, but there are all
sorts
of techniques that have been developed over the years. Computers don't
use
"magic" to calculate complex functions, there are often just programmed to
follow algorithms developed many years ago by people like Newton. Jaxie
forgets
that this is what I did for a living.

To compute a 4th root, using Newton's method:

Assume you want to compute x = a^(1/4)
Make a guess at the answer, call it x1. Then compute the next guess, x2,
as
follows:
x2 = x1 - (x1^4 - a)/(4 * x1^3)
iterate again as
x3 = x2 - (x2^4 - a)/(4 * x2^3)

When the results get sufficiently close, you have an answer. Often only 3
or
4
iterations are needed. Similar techniques can be used to calculate the
roots
of
polynomials.

I used the square root version of this a number of times. In the days
before
"Floating Point Units" in computers considerable time savings (a factor of
10
or
more) could be had by adjusting the algorithms to match the input data
and
desired accuracy.




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
wanna show us how?

]okay group, watch now how jeffies blathers on for days telling us that
what
with his degree in physics and all that he can do it easily. if I say
he
can
not he will get all snippy. he couldn't tell us how RDF worked how is
he
going
to tell us how to do 4th roots with pencil and paper.]

jeffies? do note the word algebraicly was there. in other words,
SWAGing
is
not the answer.

What's so hard about doing 4th roots with pencil and paper?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
bull. there is no intuitive way to calculate the product of those
numbers
in
that way, any more than you can calc a 4th root of a number
algabraicly
with a
pencil and paper.

uffda.
 

jeffies, data general machines were *accounting* machines, so therefore used
integer calc (it is faster).

Intel makes MICROprocessors.

Floating point machines date from the 1950's. Ever hear of Control Data?

[snip a bunch of trivia dating from 35 years later]

uffda.
 

Of course I heard of Control data - I once took a class where the final exam
required being able to explain the purpose of every wire on a discrete
transistor CDC computer was for. The computer replaced by the VAX in my
previous post was a CDC Cyber 76.

However, the point is not that SOME computers had FPUs, it was that most
computers DID NOT have FPUs, or they were slow and/or expensive, and thus
software floating point and fixed point math had to be implemented by the
application programmers.

You can claim the DG machines were primarily used for "accounting," and it may
even be so, but I worked in Astronomy and Space Sciences at the Smithsonian
(located at Harvard) and at MIT; I can assure you that in the mid '70s the labs
were filled with DG machines, because they gave the most bang for the buck.
My first "home computer" (in 1980) was an old DG 1200, followed quickly by a DEC
11/23. I still have the faceplate from the Nova.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, data general machines were *accounting* machines, so therefore used
integer calc (it is faster).

Intel makes MICROprocessors.

Floating point machines date from the 1950's. Ever hear of Control Data?

[snip a bunch of trivia dating from 35 years later]

uffda.
 

so, how come you didn't know that CDC made computers in the 1950's?

btw, you "home" computer was 11/23 in the early 80's?

sure, and you traveled to junior high school on a hydrazine rocket.

btw, how many wires on a "discrete" transitor used on a CDC machine? careful
how you speak, for my brother worked the technical end of CDC for over 30
years.

[snip the junk wherein jeffies tries to cover that even to this moment he
doesn't know even WHAT it means to calculate *algebraicly* the nth root of a
number, something every last person with degree in physics [which jeffies
claims to have] knew thoroughly before the graduated high school]

jeffies, you are hopeless. Even now you don't have a clew that you were set up
with bait a high school kid would have seen from a thousand yards.

uffda.
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
so, how come you didn't know that CDC made computers in the 1950's?

You never asked. Your claim was that all computers had FPUs so it was
unnecessary to code floating point. The fact that some computers had it is
irrelevant. Most did not.

BTW, CDC was founded late in the 50s; I'm not sure they actually shipped a
machine with floating point until the mid '60s.


btw, you "home" computer was 11/23 in the early 80's?

Sure, why not? It only cost a few thousand dollars, used. Besides, my partner
and I had a small company -we didn't rent an office for 2 years. He worked on
the DG at his house, I had the DEC at mine. These were floppy based machines,
without a lot of memory and certainly no FPU. A small disk, like an RL02 (10
meg "top loader") went for around $25,000, much more than the computer. We got
our first in '82 from Apple computer, as payment for porting our software to the
not-yet-released "Lisa," which I guess was our third computer. A Compaq
"luggable" came in 1983, a microVax and a Sun soon followed.

Actually, around 1972 I had at home an IBM 2741 Selectric terminal with a 134.5
baud modem that I could dial into Multics developement system at MIT, but that's
another story.


sure, and you traveled to junior high school on a hydrazine rocket.

That's silly. I teleported.


btw, how many wires on a "discrete" transitor used on a CDC machine? careful
how you speak, for my brother worked the technical end of CDC for over 30
years.

I don't remember, it was about 35 years ago, although 3 wires would be a good
guess for a transistor. I dealt with it at the "gate" level, not the individual
transistors. I think it was a CDC 3000. IIRC, the logic was on small boards
that each had 2 flip-flops, which probably had 2 transistors each. The back of
it was a *lot* of wire wrap. I'd guess around 30,000 "gates" in the machine,
but I could be way off. The logic book was several inches thick, with timing
charts and logic diagrams. ("On the leading edge of this signal, the data from
register x would be latched into buffer y ...") So jaxie, send this off to your
brother and ask him if its a fair description, given that I spent a few weeks
with the machine 35 years ago.



[snip the junk wherein jeffies tries to cover that even to this moment he
doesn't know even WHAT it means to calculate *algebraicly* the nth root of a
number, something every last person with degree in physics [which jeffies
claims to have] knew thoroughly before the graduated high school]

jeffies, you are hopeless. Even now you don't have a clew that you were set
up
with bait a high school kid would have seen from a thousand yards.

uffda.
 

comments interlaced

Your claim was that all computers had FPUs

nope. not what I said. you said none were available until the 1980's. I said
1950's

btw, large computers didn't -- and don't -- have Floating Point Units (see
jeffies? today you learned what FPU means). Floating point is designed in
from the start. Takes more time to calc than interger, but it is there from
the get go

BTW, CDC was founded late in the 50s; I'm not sure they actually shipped a
machine with floating point until the mid '60s.

you are wrong.

btw, you "home" computer was 11/23 in the early 80's?

Sure, why not? It only cost a few thousand dollars, used.

bull. a PDP-6, maybe, but not even a PDP-11. check your numbers dude. 11/23
was state of the art at that time. I sold interger machines at the time rather
than scientific machines. I DO know that "home computers" (i.e. 8086 based)
would go for upwards of six grand and those things didn't hardly compete with
an 11/23.

try again.

I had the DEC at mine.

no you didn't

These were floppy based
machines

no they weren't. In 1972 Shugart still worked for IBM and the floppy was still
IBM technology and was used to boot a System 32.

our first in '82 from Apple computer,

which was 68000 based, recently updated from a 6800 (btw yo-yo, Motorola called
the microprocessor chip a "68000" because supposedly it had 68,000 transistors,
which it didn't)

Actually, around 1972 I had at home an IBM 2741 Selectric terminal

a 2741 was part of an RJE station (which used punch cards) and was about the
size of two chest-style home freezers.

with a
134.5
baud modem that I could dial into Multics developement system at MIT, but
that's
another story.

another bogus story.

sure, and you traveled to junior high school on a hydrazine rocket.

That's silly. I teleported.

while you read "Amazing Stories"

btw, how many wires on a "discrete" transitor used on a CDC machine?
careful
how you speak, for my brother worked the technical end of CDC for over 30
years.

I don't remember ... would be a good
guess for a transistor. I dealt with it at the "gate" level,

"gate" level, eh?

not the
individual
transistors.

that is what a "gate" is, yo-yo, in this context

IIRC, the logic was on small boards

you are talking about TTL logic, dude. which is a whole different story than
the one you are telling

that each had 2 flip-flops, which probably had 2 transistors each.

no it didn't

The back
of
it was a *lot* of wire wrap.

yo-yo, you were looking at the semi-conductor replacements for core memory of
older, already installed machines. the "lot of wire" was there to slow the
semiconductor memory response speed down to core memory speed so the machine
didn't get ahead of itself. you know, don't you, that electricity travels one
foot per nano-second?

I'd guess around 30,000 "gates" in the machine,
but I could be way off.

not even frickin close.

The logic book was several inches thick, with timing
charts and logic diagrams. ("On the leading edge of this signal, the data
from
register x would be latched into buffer y ...")

dude, you were looking at a repair manual.

So jaxie, send this off to
your
brother and ask him if its a fair description, given that I spent a few weeks
with the machine 35 years ago.

If I sent it too him without telling him the source he would say, "Some
Internet yo-yo, I see"

uffda.
 

Subject: uffda.
From: (Shen44)
Date: 03/13/2004 09:14 Pacific Standard Time

JAX, JAx, Jax .... first, you need to learn to think, then you need to learn
to
think of possibilities and not be so concerned by doing things only by rote.
(might help you to understand how to take bearings using a magnetic compass).


bull. not even remotely possible. there is no relationship between the
numbers and the product as you claim.

The numbers, when strung together, created the correct total .... or didn't
you
realize that? (oops, sorry ....question)



Or ...

... would you like to make mention of the relationship?

see above.


We will wait no more than a few hours.

Hell, the way you reason, it will be next week before you can see a possible
relationship.
Ya know, Jax, I'll bet you're the only one who didn't understand the
possibilities in my first post on this issue.

Shen


Gee, I'm heartbroken ... no response from Jax.
Maybe he couldn't think of the possibilities .... like, people with
photographic memories (one possible term used to describe the method) can do
simple math in their heads with ease, or .....
like, he'd been "had" , and he'd jumped in with both feet and made another
"Ass" of himself ..... nah, I wouldn't do dat to ya Jaxie .... must be the
first one .... or ... maybe both EG.
Uh .... one thing. Before you try to use it as an excuse .... the numbers don't
have to relate in some mathametician's formula,they only need to relate in the
way they are remembered by the individual.
Later Dude.

Shen

uffda.
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
comments interlaced

Your claim was that all computers had FPUs

nope. not what I said. you said none were available until the 1980's. I said
1950's

btw, large computers didn't -- and don't -- have Floating Point Units (see
jeffies? today you learned what FPU means). Floating point is designed in
from the start. Takes more time to calc than interger, but it is there from
the get go

So? That wasn't the case with small machines.



BTW, CDC was founded late in the 50s; I'm not sure they actually shipped a
machine with floating point until the mid '60s.

you are wrong.

Not according to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Data_Corporation

It says the first machine was delivered in 1960. (I think it was shown in 1959)



btw, you "home" computer was 11/23 in the early 80's?

Sure, why not? It only cost a few thousand dollars, used.

bull. a PDP-6, maybe, but not even a PDP-11. check your numbers dude. 11/23
was state of the art at that time. I sold interger machines at the time
rather
than scientific machines. I DO know that "home computers" (i.e. 8086 based)
would go for upwards of six grand and those things didn't hardly compete with
an 11/23.

You know not of what you say. The smallest version of the 11/23 was 3 or 4
boards," one with the CPU, one with memory, another had 4 serial lines and a
Floppy controller (I think this was 3rd party).
http://hampage.hu/pdp-11/1123.html

This pic shows our box, though we used a cheap VT52 when we first got it.
http://hampage.hu/pdp-11/kepek/pdp-1123.jpg

This came out in 1979, so by 1981 it was not "state of the art" and we were able
to get a very minimal used system for maybe $3000. We would "code for parts" so
would could build it up very cheaply.

The DEC is long gone, but I still have the front panel from the DG, and my
partner has the core memory board.


try again.

I had the DEC at mine.

no you didn't

These were floppy based
machines

no they weren't. In 1972 Shugart still worked for IBM and the floppy was
still
IBM technology and was used to boot a System 32.

DEC had the RX01/RX02 in 1978, maybe earlier. 8 inch floppies I think ours was
a dual RX01.



our first in '82 from Apple computer,

which was 68000 based, recently updated from a 6800 (btw yo-yo, Motorola
called
the microprocessor chip a "68000" because supposedly it had 68,000
transistors,
which it didn't)

I'm quite familiar with the 68K; the job from Apple required porting about
15,000 lines of assembly code from DG and DEC to 68K. I did most of the porting
work, while my partner wrote the assembler. (Our product was a
compiler/assembler/development environment.) We didn't actually have a 68K, we
cross-compiled on the DG machine, transfered to the DEC, wrote a RX01 floppy
(which was a bit of a standard in those days), and drove across town to debug on
68K Unix box. Within 2 weeks of starting, my partner was flying to CA with the
11/23 stuffed in a suitcase. It took him several days to get it running on the
Lisa (whose O/S was much like the first Macs). Using our software, he then
solved the problem that had roadblocked the Lisa group - interference from the
floppy that jittered the screen.



Actually, around 1972 I had at home an IBM 2741 Selectric terminal

a 2741 was part of an RJE station (which used punch cards) and was about the
size of two chest-style home freezers.


Wrong again, jaxie.
http://www.multicians.org/terminals.html

"got my first home terminal in 1967, when I was working on Multics at Project
MAC. It was an IBM 2741, the standard machine for the programming staff. Like
the 1050, the 2741 had a Selectric mechanism built into a desk, but one smaller
than the 1050's, and with a slimmer electronics box and fewer switches."

Actually, I didn't work at Multics, my room mate did. But it was handy to have.

with a
134.5
baud modem that I could dial into Multics developement system at MIT, but
that's
another story.

another bogus story.

Aren't you tired of always being wrong?


btw, how many wires on a "discrete" transitor used on a CDC machine?
careful
how you speak, for my brother worked the technical end of CDC for over 30
years.

I don't remember ... would be a good
guess for a transistor. I dealt with it at the "gate" level,

"gate" level, eh?

not the
individual
transistors.

that is what a "gate" is, yo-yo, in this context

Wrong again. Gates are logical. They can be implemented with a transitor, plus
a few other things, but to a logic designer a gate and a transitor are two very
different things.



IIRC, the logic was on small boards

you are talking about TTL logic, dude. which is a whole different story than
the one you are telling

Wrong again. I said this was discrete, not integrated circuits. TTL was
certainly availible by the time I was playing with this, maybe 1970, but the CDC
3000 was built in the early '60s before ICs. Each little circuit board had
roughly what one IC chip had a few years later.



that each had 2 flip-flops, which probably had 2 transistors each.

no it didn't

Wrong yet again. A simple flip-flop is made with 2 gates, which as you said,
can be one transistor each.
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mas...eStageFlipFlop
Of course, I don't remember the exact nature of these boards, the EE side of it
didn't interest me much.


The back
of
it was a *lot* of wire wrap.

yo-yo, you were looking at the semi-conductor replacements for core memory of
older, already installed machines. the "lot of wire" was there to slow the
semiconductor memory response speed down to core memory speed so the machine
didn't get ahead of itself. you know, don't you, that electricity travels one
foot per nano-second?

Wrong one more time. Since each circuit board was the equivalent of one "chip,"
the backplane of the rack was the euivalent of the wiring embedded in today's
boards. There were thousands of these small boards, all connected through
wirewrap.



I'd guess around 30,000 "gates" in the machine,
but I could be way off.

not even frickin close.

OK, you tell me - how many gates were in the CDC 3000?



The logic book was several inches thick, with timing
charts and logic diagrams. ("On the leading edge of this signal, the data
from
register x would be latched into buffer y ...")

dude, you were looking at a repair manual.

I don't beleive there was a "repair manual" for the CPU, just the logic diagram.
But as I said, I was only around one for a few weeks.


So jaxie, send this off to
your
brother and ask him if its a fair description, given that I spent a few weeks
with the machine 35 years ago.

If I sent it too him without telling him the source he would say, "Some
Internet yo-yo, I see"

Your brother knows you well.

uffda.
 

I'm heartbroken ... no response

no valid response possible

uffda.
 

Subject: uffda.
From: (JAXAshby)



no valid response possible



ROFL Never stopped you in the past!!

Shen