> About 15 years ago, I wrote a K&R C program that calculated 'e' to 5000 > places, using 8000+bit fixed point math (8 bits to the left of the > decimal, 8000+ bits to the right). The math lib was written from scratch > as part of the program, not imported from someone elses program or library.
> I regularly use the program even now to benchmark systems; it's a great > "CPU-intensive" program.
> FWIW, I based my code on the description of a program that I read in > Byte Magazine (a late 80's issue). Steve Wozniak (of Apple Computer > fame) wrote an article about how he computed 'e' to 50,000 places on an > Apple ][ computer, using cassette tapes to store the intemediary > results. In that article, he describes the /technique/ necessary to > compute 'e' to such a large significance. Find that article, and read it > (IIRC, it was called "Computing E to 50,000 Places" or something like that).
There is a chapter in the book _Programmers at Work_, by Susan Lammers, Mi$uck Press...that is about Andy Hertzfeld. Wozniak was Hertzfeld's acknowledged "hero". Hertzfeld told that Woz ran his program to calculate "e" to 50,000 places on an Apple II computer... and it took a week. Just before it was supposed to print out the result, someone knocked the plug out of the wall socket. So Woz had to start over...but he finally did get his digits of "e".
The program was designed to calculate "e" to enough places to use *all* the available memory of the Apple II (after the program is there) to hold the digits. IIRC.
-- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+
> > About 15 years ago, I wrote a K&R C program that calculated 'e' to 5000 > > places, using 8000+bit fixed point math (8 bits to the left of the > > decimal, 8000+ bits to the right). The math lib was written from scratch > > as part of the program, not imported from someone elses program or library.
> > I regularly use the program even now to benchmark systems; it's a great > > "CPU-intensive" program.
I used to know people who assigned this for a college freshman programming class.
It is relatively easy as multiple precision problems go, as it does not require division with a multiple precision divisor. If you store some number of decimal digits in each machine word, it isn't hard to detect overflow to perform carries, and output conversion is easy, too.
Though I did used to know a binary multiple precision package that would do the decimal conversion to a printable form. All written in assembler, and used all the available bits to hold data.
> Lew Pitcher wrote: ... > > About 15 years ago, I wrote a K&R C program that calculated 'e' to 5000 > > places, using 8000+bit fixed point math (8 bits to the left of the > > decimal, 8000+ bits to the right). The math lib was written from scratch > > as part of the program, not imported from someone elses program or library. ...
> > FWIW, I based my code on the description of a program that I read in > > Byte Magazine (a late 80's issue). Steve Wozniak (of Apple Computer > > fame) wrote an article about how he computed 'e' to 50,000 places on an > > Apple ][ computer, using cassette tapes to store the intemediary > > results. In that article, he describes the /technique/ necessary to > > compute 'e' to such a large significance. Find that article, and read it > > (IIRC, it was called "Computing E to 50,000 Places" or something like that).
> There is a chapter in the book _Programmers at Work_, by Susan > Lammers, Mi$uck Press...that is about Andy Hertzfeld. Wozniak was > Hertzfeld's acknowledged "hero". Hertzfeld told that Woz ran his > program to calculate "e" to 50,000 places on an Apple II computer... > and it took a week. Just before it was supposed to print out the > result, someone knocked the plug out of the wall socket. So Woz > had to start over...but he finally did get his digits of "e".
> The program was designed to calculate "e" to enough places to use > *all* the available memory of the Apple II (after the program is > there) to hold the digits. IIRC.
Ken Thompson and Bob Morris have a 1975 paper, entitled "A million digits of e on a minicomputer," describing two such calculations. The two versions used the same algorithm. (The basic game is that you already know e-2 exactly: it is .111... in the mixed-radix notation in which the weight of digit n is 1/n!).
The first was done about 1972-3 on a PDP-11/20. The interesting thing is that this machine had no memory protection, rather few K of memory and was being used for time-sharing at the same time. It took several months.
The second was on an 11/45 (now with protected memory), but still time-sharing. This took only a couple of weeks, partly because the 11/45 was faster, more because they used the built-in FP instructions to get more bits/operation.
In the end the calculations agreed to about 950K places. They didn't bother to investigate the discrepancy.
One result was printed out in "serial access form,", i.e. on roll paper on a TTY33. The other was "random access form," using a TTY37 with fan-fold paper. Both terminals survived the ~day of continuous printing, but the ribbons were pretty faint toward the end.
>Both terminals survived the >~day of continuous printing, but the ribbons were pretty >faint toward the end.
<story> This reminded me of someone that I knew back in the late 70's. He was evaluating printers, looking for a model to sell. His business was selling and repairing TTY's. He was looking for a dot-matrix printer that was as reliable. Come to think of it, I think Bell Labs was one of his customers. (He was based in NJ)
His favorite test, was to load up a box of paper, and start printing. He told me that most of the printers that he tested died after only a box or two of paper. One printer he gave up on. It never died. I still have two of that model. Working. One of them is used as a status printer on my alarm system. The other is a spare. </story>
> > Both terminals survived the > > ~day of continuous printing, but the ribbons were pretty > > faint toward the end.
> <story> > This reminded me of someone that I knew back in the late 70's. He > was evaluating printers, looking for a model to sell. His business > was selling and repairing TTY's. He was looking for a dot-matrix > printer that was as reliable. Come to think of it, I think Bell > Labs was one of his customers. (He was based in NJ)
> His favorite test, was to load up a box of paper, and start > printing. He told me that most of the printers that he tested died > after only a box or two of paper. One printer he gave up on. It > never died. I still have two of that model. Working. One of > them is used as a status printer on my alarm system. The other is > a spare. > </story>
The first /reliable/ printer at a reasonable price that I encountered was the Epson MX80. IIRC the early ones went for something in the $300..$500 range, and took very little care and feeding. I have an RX80 somewhere still.
-- Chuck F (cbfalco...@yahoo.com) (cbfalco...@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
>> > Both terminals survived the >> > ~day of continuous printing, but the ribbons were pretty >> > faint toward the end.
>> <story> >> This reminded me of someone that I knew back in the late 70's. He >> was evaluating printers, looking for a model to sell. His business >> was selling and repairing TTY's. He was looking for a dot-matrix >> printer that was as reliable. Come to think of it, I think Bell >> Labs was one of his customers. (He was based in NJ)
>> His favorite test, was to load up a box of paper, and start >> printing. He told me that most of the printers that he tested died >> after only a box or two of paper. One printer he gave up on. It >> never died. I still have two of that model. Working. One of >> them is used as a status printer on my alarm system. The other is >> a spare. >> </story>
>The first /reliable/ printer at a reasonable price that I >encountered was the Epson MX80. IIRC the early ones went for >something in the $300..$500 range, and took very little care and >feeding. I have an RX80 somewhere still.
The printer in my little story was an Okidata ML 82a. Considering that I am still using it after 25 years, I would say that it also was reliable. The only problem is going to be finding another print head when the current one wears out, again. Also, I think I have a rebadged Epson of that vintage sitting around. Still working. Also some little slow HP 80 col printer. With an odd instruction set. But thats HP.
> > > Both terminals survived the > > > ~day of continuous printing, but the ribbons were pretty > > > faint toward the end.
> > <story> > > This reminded me of someone that I knew back in the late 70's. He > > was evaluating printers, looking for a model to sell. His business > > was selling and repairing TTY's. He was looking for a dot-matrix > > printer that was as reliable. Come to think of it, I think Bell > > Labs was one of his customers. (He was based in NJ)
> > His favorite test, was to load up a box of paper, and start > > printing. He told me that most of the printers that he tested died > > after only a box or two of paper. One printer he gave up on. It > > never died. I still have two of that model. Working. One of > > them is used as a status printer on my alarm system. The other is > > a spare. > > </story>
> The first /reliable/ printer at a reasonable price that I > encountered was the Epson MX80. IIRC the early ones went for > something in the $300..$500 range, and took very little care and > feeding. I have an RX80 somewhere still.
I have a Citizen 120D which was a near clone of one of that series still in working order. -- Nick Spalding
Nick Spalding <spald...@iol.ie> wrote: >> encountered was the Epson MX80. IIRC the early ones went for >> something in the $300..$500 range, and took very little care and >> feeding. I have an RX80 somewhere still.
> I have a Citizen 120D which was a near clone of one of that series still in > working order.
Likewise, I have an ancient Panasonic KXP1080 (or 1081? - can't remember, it's buried in my spare room) which is an enhanced MX80 clone. Bit of a boat-anchor these days as I've got a lovely Xerox C20... (Actually, Panasonic build sturdy stuff generally - for a brand that lacks the cachet and perceived quality of Sony, their consumer electronics are generally pretty damn good - I've had very good experience with their TVs and monitors...)
pete -- p...@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
>>ararghNOS...@NOT.AT.enteract.com wrote: >>> His favorite test, was to load up a box of paper, and start >>> printing. He told me that most of the printers that he tested died >>> after only a box or two of paper. One printer he gave up on. It >>> never died. I still have two of that model. Working. One of >>> them is used as a status printer on my alarm system. The other is >>> a spare. >>The first /reliable/ printer at a reasonable price that I >>encountered was the Epson MX80. IIRC the early ones went for >>something in the $300..$500 range, and took very little care and >>feeding. I have an RX80 somewhere still. >The printer in my little story was an Okidata ML 82a. Considering >that I am still using it after 25 years, I would say that it also was >reliable.
I was going to ask if it was that model the moment I saw your post (but followed the thread to see :)
There was also a 92, with a wider carriage.
Then they came out with the 182 and 192 to "replace" them, and it was all over :(
The original apple Imagewriter was also a workhorse; the Imagewriter II was no match for it.
hawk -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign doch...@psu.edu Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of X and postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
AAEC> One printer he gave up on. It never died. I AAEC> still have two of that model. Working.
Epson I presume ?
-- C:>WIN | Directable Mirrors The computer obeys and wins. |A Better Way To Focus The Sun You lose and Bill collects. | licenses available - see: | http://www.sohara.org/
>>The first /reliable/ printer at a reasonable price that I >>encountered was the Epson MX80. IIRC the early ones went for >>something in the $300..$500 range, and took very little care and >>feeding. I have an RX80 somewhere still.
>The printer in my little story was an Okidata ML 82a. Considering >that I am still using it after 25 years, I would say that it also was >reliable.
I still come across one occasionally, sitting in some corner just waiting to print whatever comes along. When I got involved in telephone call data recording in the mid '80s they were ubiquitous. A good, solid unit.
-- /~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
>>> encountered was the Epson MX80. IIRC the early ones went for >>> something in the $300..$500 range, and took very little care and >>> feeding. I have an RX80 somewhere still.
>> I have a Citizen 120D which was a near clone of one of that series >> still in working order.
> Likewise, I have an ancient Panasonic KXP1080 (or 1081? - can't > remember, it's buried in my spare room) which is an enhanced > MX80 clone. Bit of a boat-anchor these days as I've got a lovely > Xerox C20...
I still occasionally haul out my KX-P1124 when I need to run some tests to a straightforward non-PostScript, non-PCL, non-Winprinter. It cost me $600 when I bought it - but hey, a 24-pin dot-matrix printer was hot stuff at the time. (Various Panasonic models were also sold under the Roland name with different model numbers.)
> (Actually, Panasonic build sturdy stuff generally - for a brand > that lacks the cachet and perceived quality of Sony, their > consumer electronics are generally pretty damn good - I've > had very good experience with their TVs and monitors...)
Yes, they've always managed to quietly do a pretty good job of whatever they try.
-- /~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
On Fri, 02 May 2003 04:32:54 -0500, ararghNOS...@NOT.AT.enteract.com
<ararghNOS...@NOT.AT.enteract.com> wrote: >The printer in my little story was an Okidata ML 82a. Considering >that I am still using it after 25 years, I would say that it also was >reliable.
I had an Oki Microline bought in '82. That's still in use, but not by me. My Star NL-10, mid '80s, is still in everyday use after printing boxes and boxes of paper over the years, and I know of another one that has spent the last 15 years printing labels every day. Also very reliable...
-- Cheers, Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com (Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)
> >>The first /reliable/ printer at a reasonable price that I > >>encountered was the Epson MX80. IIRC the early ones went for > >>something in the $300..$500 range, and took very little care and > >>feeding. I have an RX80 somewhere still.
> >The printer in my little story was an Okidata ML 82a. Considering > >that I am still using it after 25 years, I would say that it also was > >reliable.
> I was going to ask if it was that model the moment I saw your post (but > followed the thread to see :)
> There was also a 92, with a wider carriage.
A customer of ours got a whole "pile" of 92's as recently as 1999 to use as serial port printers (there was a required adapter car in the printer IIRC). This was in a very "industrial" environment with "users" who would likely "hit" the printer if it didn't work. To my knowledge they're still all working fine. As to the MX-80, I tried to buy one shortly after they first came out but they were back logged. Instead the dealer sold me an MX-100 (with GRAFTRAX :-) and although I rarely use it anymore, it still works or at least did the last time I turned it on a year or so ago. When I first got it, I did have problems with the print head and went through a couple pretty quickly under warranty.
Once upon a time, Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> said:
>Yes, they've always managed to quietly do a pretty good job of >whatever they try.
I thought you were talking about dot matrix printers? "quietly"? -- Chris Adams <cmad...@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
> Once upon a time, Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> said: > >Yes, they've always managed to quietly do a pretty good job of > >whatever they try.
> I thought you were talking about dot matrix printers? "quietly"?
Compared to chain printers like the 1403 they were pretty quiet. The 1403 has a sound absorbing box, too.
>>>> His favorite test, was to load up a box of paper, and start >>>> printing. He told me that most of the printers that he tested died >>>> after only a box or two of paper. One printer he gave up on. It >>>> never died. I still have two of that model. Working. One of >>>> them is used as a status printer on my alarm system. The other is >>>> a spare.
>>>The first /reliable/ printer at a reasonable price that I >>>encountered was the Epson MX80. IIRC the early ones went for >>>something in the $300..$500 range, and took very little care and >>>feeding. I have an RX80 somewhere still.
>>The printer in my little story was an Okidata ML 82a. Considering >>that I am still using it after 25 years, I would say that it also was >>reliable.
>I was going to ask if it was that model the moment I saw your post (but >followed the thread to see :)
>There was also a 92, with a wider carriage.
The 83 was the wide version of the 82a, I think that the 92 was later.
>Then they came out with the 182 and 192 to "replace" them, and it was >all over :(
I have a couple of 182's that still work. I am saving them for spares for my garage/gas station. The garage has an wheel alignment system that uses a modified bios version of a 182, and if it dies . . . I have already fixed it once.
>The original apple Imagewriter was also a workhorse; the Imagewriter II >was no match for it.
How about a Centronics 101 printer? They seem to last, also. I should see if mine still works.
Nah, too loud.
Wizzzzzzz-thump. Repeat until you have to leave the room.
Pete Fenelon <p...@fenelon.com> wrote: >Nick Spalding <spald...@iol.ie> wrote: >>> encountered was the Epson MX80. IIRC the early ones went for >>> something in the $300..$500 range, and took very little care and >>> feeding. I have an RX80 somewhere still.
>> I have a Citizen 120D which was a near clone of one of that series still in >> working order.
>Likewise, I have an ancient Panasonic KXP1080 (or 1081? - can't >remember, it's buried in my spare room) which is an enhanced >MX80 clone. Bit of a boat-anchor these days as I've got a lovely >Xerox C20... (Actually, Panasonic build sturdy stuff generally - >for a brand that lacks the cachet and perceived quality of Sony, >their consumer electronics are generally pretty damn good - I've >had very good experience with their TVs and monitors...)
I remember seeing the Matsushita (aka Panasonic/Quasar) name on a number of parts in IBM equipment used 24x7, so they're probably pretty reliable (on the order of 10 years with zero failures).
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- Brian.Ing...@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply
In alt.folklore.computers, you wrote: > I still occasionally haul out my KX-P1124 when I need to run some > tests to a straightforward non-PostScript, non-PCL, non-Winprinter. > It cost me $600 when I bought it - but hey, a 24-pin dot-matrix > printer was hot stuff at the time. (Various Panasonic models were > also sold under the Roland name with different model numbers.)
I used to have one of those. Ran perfectly for years until I sold it. Should have kept it. Noisy though.
I had a Star 10 that lasted many thousands of pages and 8 years before one of the print wires started misfiring.
I'd like to have a reliable impact printer now. I prefer those printouts for code and things like database listings.
I have an inkjet, and even at $8 a shot, the cartridges are still expensive if you print very much. Ironically, if you do NOT print often, they don't work well. You need to print at least once a week or two to keep them wet, or whatever it is they need.
> Yes, they've always managed to quietly do a pretty good job of > whatever they try.
They have some cool stuff in Japan that they don't sell over here, which I'd like to see in the US market.
Someone told me lately their laptops have fallen in quality, but I have never verified this.
> I had a Star 10 that lasted many thousands of pages and 8 years > before one of the print wires started misfiring.
> I'd like to have a reliable impact printer now. I prefer those > printouts for code and things like database listings.
> I have an inkjet, and even at $8 a shot, the cartridges are still > expensive if you print very much. Ironically, if you do NOT > print often, they don't work well. You need to print at least > once a week or two to keep them wet, or whatever it is they need.
There is no excuse for not having a Laser printer today. Some models go for under $200 (US) today, and combined with such utilities as Fineprint (for booklet output) are very economical. Mine sits there gobbling up 5 to 10 watts in standby mode, and still gets first sheets out after warm-up time as quickly as an inkjet.
The only reason for an inkjet is color. Their operating costs and reliability are out of this world, in the evilest sense.
-- Chuck F (cbfalco...@yahoo.com) (cbfalco...@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
On Sat, 03 May 2003 05:38:54 GMT, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>There is no excuse for not having a Laser printer today. Some >models go for under $200 (US) today, and combined with such >utilities as Fineprint (for booklet output) are very economical. >Mine sits there gobbling up 5 to 10 watts in standby mode, and >still gets first sheets out after warm-up time as quickly as an >inkjet.
But for some kinds of source listings, fanfold works better than loose pages.
>The only reason for an inkjet is color. Their operating costs and >reliability are out of this world, in the evilest sense.
Charles Shannon Hendrix <shan...@news.widomaker.com> wrote:
>> Yes, they've always managed to quietly do a pretty good job of >> whatever they try.
> They have some cool stuff in Japan that they don't sell over here, which > I'd like to see in the US market.
> Someone told me lately their laptops have fallen in quality, but I have > never verified this.
Almost everyone's have. A laptop seems to be perceived as a status item, and therefore not one anyone who is correctly attuned to the consumer zeitgeist would want to keep for more than a couple of years.
They don't merely have built-in obsolescence - they have built in "it doesn't work any more"...
pete -- p...@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
On Sat, 03 May 2003 05:38:54 GMT, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to have a reliable impact printer now. I prefer those >> printouts for code and things like database listings.
I had a reliable dotmatrix, children objected to the noise, which resembled a dentists drill. One company had a special room for the printers, which was handy for someone who liked to read others printouts.
>> I have an inkjet, and even at $8 a shot, the cartridges are still >> expensive if you print very much. Ironically, if you do NOT >> print often, they don't work well. You need to print at least >> once a week or two to keep them wet, or whatever it is they need.
> There is no excuse for not having a Laser printer today. Some > models go for under $200 (US) today, and combined with such > utilities as Fineprint (for booklet output) are very economical. > Mine sits there gobbling up 5 to 10 watts in standby mode, and > still gets first sheets out after warm-up time as quickly as an > inkjet.
I got an OKI, daughter brought it with her when she moved out, then bought a LexMark E320, daughter moved back in, Lexmark cost about 300euros, new toner catridge cost 170euros. Children we have forever, well almost, printers vary.
> The only reason for an inkjet is color. Their operating costs and > reliability are out of this world, in the evilest sense.
