Data from Columbia 2/1/03 massacre survived... Sounds like another govmint covup to me!
triba_...@yahoo.com
On the Net:
NASA write-up of the experiment whose data was recovered:
the news article tried to downplay the use of the DOS operating system
as the OS for the space shuttle, saying that facilitated writing to
one hard drive. Windows can also write to one drive - just don't
partition it.
what leads me to think it was a governmint coverup is the stating that
a NASA contractor kept the hard drive for 6 months before handing it
over to Kroll Ontrack to 'recover' the data. why did the contractor
hold on to it for so long? yeah, we got us one of dem dar govmint
covups again. but what else would you expect from NASA, and, also,
the evil EWOC (Emperor WithOut Clothes) GWBush!
triba la raza!
Jorge R. Frank
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_hi_te/shuttle_recovered_data
>
> On the Net:
>
> NASA write-up of the experiment whose data was recovered:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/44nqgv
>
> the news article tried to downplay the use of the DOS operating system
> as the OS for the space shuttle,
DOS was never the OS for the space shuttle. The space shuttle carried
experiments from many different agencies and some of them used DOS. That
does not mean that DOS was the OS for the space shuttle.
eyeball
James Of Tucson
> DOS was never the OS for the space shuttle.
When MS-DOS was on the table, the choice was made to use 68000 chips
and the OS-9 operating system instead.
But the avionics systems were never based on consumer hardware or
software at all.
The avionics are distributed among hundreds (about 300) separate
specialized control units. These were designed from the ground up
specifically for the Shuttle. These control units are interfaced to
"General Purpose Computers".
At one time, the GPCs were based on a Motorola 68000, but a special
one that was designed for the space program.
That one ran OS-9. It was actually the second generation GPC, in
84.
There have been many, very significant changes in the shuttle since
the mid 80s. (Again, people seem to think because the orbiters have
the same airframes, they are just being flown with the same complement
every mission).
jg
jg
"eyeball" <eyeball...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f074f02a-6daf-431b...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Alan Erskine
news:f074f02a-6daf-431b...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
LOL! I never thought I'd see a picture of someone actually wearing a
tinfoil had!
Brian Gaff
Its often the case with experiments that you do not need complexity. Indeed,
using Dos on a cut down lump of pc hardware gathering data from experiments
is probably far more reliable than most other operating systems.
As for keeping it secret... Pardon, it was know very long time ago that
data recovery was being attempted on a lot of recovered gear. If there is no
rush, then the more data you can get the better.
Have you ever tried to reconstruct a hard drive and read the platters after
such an event? No neither have I and to get anything is quite a triumph I
would say.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:L8CdnVP3Su5nZrnV...@giganews.com...
André, PE1PQX
The OS for the GPC was (and probably is) AFAIK HALS, High Order
Assenbly Language for Shuttle, this is developed by IBM
LooseChanj
> Have you ever tried to reconstruct a hard drive and read the platters after
> such an event? No neither have I and to get anything is quite a triumph I
> would say.
The article I saw said they got 90% of the data. Of course, it was the
90% that was crap. :-D
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen
Jorge R. Frank
>
> At one time, the GPCs were based on a Motorola 68000, but a special
> one that was designed for the space program.
> That one ran OS-9. It was actually the second generation GPC, in
> 84.
No. The GPCs have always been from the IBM AP-101 family. They started
out as AP-101B and were upgraded to AP-101S starting in 1991. The S has
more memory and has the IOP integrated into the CPU, while the B had
separate CPUs and IOPs.
The AP-101 family never used Motorola microprocessors. The AP-101 is
binary-compatible with the IBM System/360 series.
The OS on the shuttle AP-101 GPCs has never been OS-9. The PASS GPCs run
a custom OS called FCOS. I don't remember what the OS is called on the
BFS GPC but it wasn't OS-9.
See Jenkins, 3rd ed, pp 406-407 for discussion.
Jorge R. Frank
HAL/S was not the OS, FCOS was the OS (at least for the PASS GPCs).
HAL/S was the language in which most of the flight software was written.
HAL/S was developed by Intermetrics; the PASS flight software was
developed by IBM.
Al Dykes
James Of Tucson <james0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 9, 6:36 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfr...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>
>> DOS was never the OS for the space shuttle.
>
>When MS-DOS was on the table, the choice was made to use 68000 chips
>and the OS-9 operating system instead.
>But the avionics systems were never based on consumer hardware or
>software at all.
>
>The avionics are distributed among hundreds (about 300) separate
>specialized control units. These were designed from the ground up
>specifically for the Shuttle. These control units are interfaced to
>"General Purpose Computers".
>
>At one time, the GPCs were based on a Motorola 68000, but a special
>one that was designed for the space program.
>That one ran OS-9. It was actually the second generation GPC, in
As someone else posted in more detail, the main computers were
off-the-shelf IBM hardware. See
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/space/space_shuttle.html
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
ayatollah obama
> "eyeball" <eyeball2002...@aol.com> wrote in message
Now there's an obamarama supporter if I've ever seen one! Is he the
new director for Nasa in January?????
-------
DemonCraps.... Making the lives of poor people even more miserable!
DemonCraps.... Save a planet, Starve a Nation
Brian Thorn
<jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>James Of Tucson wrote:
>>
>> At one time, the GPCs were based on a Motorola 68000, but a special
>> one that was designed for the space program.
>> That one ran OS-9. It was actually the second generation GPC, in
>> 84.
>
>No. The GPCs have always been from the IBM AP-101 family. They started
>out as AP-101B and were upgraded to AP-101S starting in 1991. The S has
>more memory and has the IOP integrated into the CPU, while the B had
>separate CPUs and IOPs.
IIRC, 68000s did turn up in the updated Main Engine Controllers circa
1990. I had an Amiga at the time and was impressed that some part of
the Shuttle was also now using the 68000.
Brian
Jorge R. Frank
Hmm, right you are. Jenkins says the Block II MECs were certified in
1991 (p. 416) but does not mention that it used a 68000. That bit of
info is in /Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience/, however.
Jorge R. Frank
It is also probably worth pointing out that there are other "computers"
on the shuttle that are more powerful than the GPCs. The MEDS IDPs are
Intel 386-based, and the MEDS MDUs have RISC processors, for example.
OM
...And with that, Brian wins an "I Corrected Jorge" baseball cap, the
first of its kind. Congrats!
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:16:35 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
><jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>
>>> IIRC, 68000s did turn up in the updated Main Engine Controllers circa
>>> 1990. I had an Amiga at the time and was impressed that some part of
>>> the Shuttle was also now using the 68000.
>>
>>Hmm, right you are. Jenkins says the Block II MECs were certified in
>>1991 (p. 416) but does not mention that it used a 68000. That bit of
>>info is in /Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience/, however.
>
>...And with that, Brian wins an "I Corrected Jorge" baseball cap, the
>first of its kind. Congrats!
Jorge: 127, Brian: 1
:-)
Brian
BradGuth
I looks to me as though data that goes missing and relatively young
folks of NASA that should be in nothing but the very best of health
are suddenly dieing off, is their status quo of cloak and dagger
business as per usual.
. - Brad Guth
Eric Chomko
Democraps? Who got us into the nation building in the Middle East? Who
started a dumb war based upon false intel?
You Repugs had your chance and blew it.
triba_...@yahoo.com
the article stated that DOS was used stupid. did you even take time
to read the article, you lazy fuck?
triba_...@yahoo.com
didn't notice it from your 1st post, Jorge, but saw it when James Of
Tucson responded to you.
yeah, you have 'ibm' in your email addy. we all know how you IBMers
fly by the seat of your pants, so i am sure you DIDN'T read the link i
posted when i started the thread. and, everyone knows how IBM does
not mind being involved in coverups, particularly when it involves ANY
government.
and, don't ANYONE forget, that IBM did business with the evil,
murderous Germains in world war II. 'nuff said!
triba_...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
oh, so you PURPORT that you can read...but just refuse to...
nice going fella.
triba_...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
RISC processors are called that for a reason. they are shit, and are
very risky. yet another 'tribute' to the evil, vacuous IBM
triba_...@yahoo.com
> In article <fa70fc63-cc72-4650-87b8-63660f254...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
yeah, and IBM computers = shit computers. no more need be said!
triba_...@yahoo.com
> Yeah, people do try to find things that are not really there don't they?
> Its often the case with experiments that you do not need complexity. Indeed,
> using Dos on a cut down lump of pc hardware gathering data from experiments
> is probably far more reliable than most other operating systems.
>
> As for keeping it secret... Pardon, it was know very long time ago that
> data recovery was being attempted on a lot of recovered gear. If there is no
> rush, then the more data you can get the better.
>
> Have you ever tried to reconstruct a hard drive and read the platters after
> such an event? No neither have I and to get anything is quite a triumph I
> would say.
>
> Brian
>
> --
> Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
> graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfr...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in messagenews:L8CdnVP3Su5nZrnV...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > triba_la_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_hi_te/shuttle_recovered_data
>
> >> On the Net:
>
> >> NASA write-up of the experiment whose data was recovered:
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/44nqgv
>
> >> the news article tried to downplay the use of the DOS operating system
> >> as the OS for the space shuttle,
>
> > DOS was never the OS for the space shuttle. The space shuttle carried
> > experiments from many different agencies and some of them used DOS. That
>
> - Show quoted text -
i notice you are an apologizer for IBM AND the federal government AND
the company that
did the 'recovery' of the data.
the only party you left out was the NASA contractor who held the drive
for six months
before turning it over to the 'recoverer of the data'.
would you like to come to their defense too?
how nice!
OM
wrote:
>i notice you are an apologizer for IBM AND the federal government AND
>the company that did the 'recovery' of the data.
...You know, even with only one leg left, I'm so sick of you
childmolesters taking out your guilt on those of us who support
Mankind's greatest achievements that I wouldn't hesitate to find a way
to put you six feet under before you made another bullshit post like
that one. However, since cowards like you will never come forth to
back up their crap, and will forever hide behind their monitors, the
best I can do is the same thing everyone else with any sense should
do.
<PLONK>
...If there is a Circle of Hell below the ones occupied by IRS workers
and childmolesters, it's occupied by trolls such as this dipshit here.
"IBM Apologist"? Pfft.
triba_...@yahoo.com
> "eyeball" <eyeball2002...@aol.com> wrote in message
why not? we are quite sure you do it all the time, 'mr wizard'!
SPANK!
bring it on back if you want even more abuse, punk!
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>> > the news article tried to downplay the use of the DOS operating system
>> > as the OS for the space shuttle,
>>
>> DOS was never the OS for the space shuttle. The space shuttle carried
>> experiments from many different agencies and some of them used DOS. That
>> does not mean that DOS was the OS for the space shuttle.
>
>the article stated that DOS was used stupid. did you even take time
>to read the article,
But the article does not say that DOS is the OS for the space shuttle.
That was entirely you adding 2 + 2 and getting 22, and then acting
like a 9 year old child when you were corrected about it.
As Jorge explained (uselessly to you, it appears), the recovered hard
drive was part of an experiment installed in the Spacehab laboratory
module in the Columbia's cargo bay.
The "OS" of the Space Shuttle is not DOS, it is HAL/S, a type of
Assembly Language. This is well-documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL/S
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AP-101
Brian
Jorge R. Frank
One more time, for the comprehension challenged:
Jorge R. Frank
> On May 10, 12:32 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfr...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>> James Of Tucson wrote:
>>
>>> At one time, the GPCs were based on a Motorola 68000, but a special
>>> one that was designed for the space program.
>>> That one ran OS-9. It was actually the second generation GPC, in
>>> 84.
>> No. The GPCs have always been from the IBM AP-101 family. They started
>> out as AP-101B and were upgraded to AP-101S starting in 1991. The S has
>> more memory and has the IOP integrated into the CPU, while the B had
>> separate CPUs and IOPs.
>>
>> The AP-101 family never used Motorola microprocessors. The AP-101 is
>> binary-compatible with the IBM System/360 series.
>>
>> The OS on the shuttle AP-101 GPCs has never been OS-9. The PASS GPCs run
>> a custom OS called FCOS. I don't remember what the OS is called on the
>> BFS GPC but it wasn't OS-9.
>>
>> See Jenkins, 3rd ed, pp 406-407 for discussion.
>
> didn't notice it from your 1st post, Jorge, but saw it when James Of
> Tucson responded to you.
>
> yeah, you have 'ibm' in your email addy. we all know how you IBMers
> fly by the seat of your pants, so i am sure you DIDN'T read the link i
> posted when i started the thread.
That isn't my real email addy, dumbass.
Jorge R. Frank
OK, took me too long to catch on, triba_la_raza is a loon.
Easy to fix.
Rand Simberg
R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>OK, took me too long to catch on, triba_la_raza is a loon.
That was actually easily inferable from teh screen name.
I mean, "the tribe of the race"? Come on...
Dale Carlson
<jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>OK, took me too long to catch on, triba_la_raza is a loon.
>
>Easy to fix.
Yup, he got plonked here after a couple of lines :)
Dale
Jan Vorbrüggen
If it so did, it didn't know what it was talking about. DOS was an
operating system for the first S/360 systems 8-).
People often claim MS DOS was used when what they really mean is the
file system that MS DOS introduced to the PC, i.e., FAT16 or its
successor FAT32. WNT, Linux et al. will all happily read and write such
a file system, with no involvement of whatever DOS.
Jan
Eric Chomko
IBM invented RISC? I thought it was DEC?
Rick Jones
> > RISC processors are called that for a reason. ?they are shit, and
> > are very risky. ?yet another 'tribute' to the evil, vacuous IBM
> IBM invented RISC? I thought it was DEC?
I am reasonably confident that DEC did not invent RISC. I'm not sure
if IBM invented the concept of RISC, but they did have an early RISC
processor - the 801 IIRC. It was in the IBM "PC-RT" which those enough
"fortunate" to be at CMU ca 1984-1988 could use as an "Andrew"
workstation. They were generally third in preference among users
(well at least me, based on performance) behind Sun 3/80's and DEC
MicroVax II's.
When HP started marketing PA-RISC ca 1986 they were calling it HP-PA -
Hewlett-Packard Precision Architecture - I'm told because people
indeed considered "RISC" risky. After RISC was established, it was
then called PA-RISC for Precision Architecture RISC.
rick jones
--
The computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as
it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose."
- Rick Jones
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Fred J. McCall
:In sci.space.history Eric Chomko <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> > RISC processors are called that for a reason. ?they are shit, and
:> > are very risky. ?yet another 'tribute' to the evil, vacuous IBM
:>
:> IBM invented RISC? I thought it was DEC?
:
:I am reasonably confident that DEC did not invent RISC. I'm not sure
:if IBM invented the concept of RISC, but they did have an early RISC
:processor - the 801 IIRC.
:
RISC was sort of invented in two places at about the same time. One
of those places was Building 801 at IBM's T.J. Watson Research Center.
The other was under a DARPA program at UC Berkeley. Both of these
occurred around 1980 or so.
:
:It was in the IBM "PC-RT" which those enough
:"fortunate" to be at CMU ca 1984-1988 could use as an "Andrew"
:workstation.
:
No, that was a different processor. I think that one was the RS/6000.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
OM
<rick....@hp.com> wrote:
>I am reasonably confident that DEC did not invent RISC. I'm not sure
>if IBM invented the concept of RISC, but they did have an early RISC
>processor - the 801 IIRC. It was in the IBM "PC-RT" which those enough
>"fortunate" to be at CMU ca 1984-1988 could use as an "Andrew"
>workstation. They were generally third in preference among users
>(well at least me, based on performance) behind Sun 3/80's and DEC
>MicroVax II's.
...From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risc#Early_RISC :
"The first system that would today be known as RISC was not at the
time; it was the CDC 6600 supercomputer, designed in 1964 by Jim
Thornton and Seymour Cray. Thornton and Cray designed it as a
number-crunching CPU (with 74 opcodes, compared with a 8086's 400)
plus 12 simple computers called "peripheral processors" to handle I/O
and most other operating system functions. The CDC 6600 had a
load-store architecture with only two addressing modes
(register+register, and register+immediate constant). There were
eleven pipelined functional units for arithmetic and logic, plus five
load units and two store units (the memory had multiple banks so all
load-store units could operate at the same time). The basic clock
cycle/instruction issue rate was 10 times faster than the memory
access time.
Another early load-store machine was the Data General Nova
minicomputer, designed in 1968.
The earliest attempt to make a chip-based RISC CPU was a project at
IBM which started in 1975. Named after the building where the project
ran, the work led to the IBM 801 CPU family which was used widely
inside IBM hardware. The 801 was eventually produced in a single-chip
form as the ROMP in 1981, which stood for Research OPD [Office
Products Division] Mini Processor. As the name implies, this CPU was
designed for "mini" tasks, and when IBM released the IBM RT-PC based
on the design in 1986, the performance was not acceptable.
Nevertheless the 801 inspired several research projects, including new
ones at IBM that would eventually lead to their POWER system.
The most public RISC designs, however, were the results of university
research programs run with funding from the DARPA VLSI Program. The
VLSI Program, practically unknown today, led to a huge number of
advances in chip design, fabrication, and even computer graphics."
...The bit about RISC essentially originating with the "Cyber" jives
with what I was taught back in '76 when I first got indoctrinated into
what we of my High School's "Brain Trust" were getting into when we
were given accounts to access Texas University's CDC-6600. The catch
is that we were told the term "reduced instruction set", but the
acronym apparently came later. Of course, we were doing BASIC and
Minnesota Northstar Fortran IV in those days, so any reduction in our
instruction sets involved trying to code as fast as we could to keep
the dial-up costs down to a semi-minimum :-P Ironically, I wouldn't
hear the term RISC mentioned again in a computer class until 1985 in a
Pascal class, when bimbo-emeritus "Dr." Nell Dale tried to claim
top-down design would make RISC easier and Pascal the language that
would make BASIC and C obsolete. Pushing bullshit like that explains
why it wasn't until she retired from teaching that Texas U's CS degree
was finally accredited with a BS as opposed to the BA founded on pure
BS that it had been for years.
Kevin Willoughby
om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com says...
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 00:05:16 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones
> <rick....@hp.com> wrote:
>
> >I am reasonably confident that DEC did not invent RISC. I'm not sure
> >if IBM invented the concept of RISC,
RISC was one of those "in the air" concepts that several groups invented
independently. Probably the best candidate for first inventor is David
Paterson of UC/Berkeley. If nothing else, he was the guy who coined the
name RISC.
In addition to inventing the current style of CPUs, Paterson also
invented the current style of high-performance disk systems: RAID. He's
also responsible for the "smart disk" style that has made Netezza
successful.
> "The first system that would today be known as RISC was not at the
> time; it was the CDC 6600 supercomputer, designed in 1964 by Jim
> Thornton and Seymour Cray. [...]
>
> Another early load-store machine was the Data General Nova
> minicomputer, designed in 1968.
Early, but not first. The PDP-5 predated not just the Nova but also the
CDC-6600. The -5 has an even more reduced instruction set than the CDC
-- just eight opcodes. An updated version of the -5 was the PDP-8. The
head engineer of the -8 quit DEC to found Data General where he (Edson
d'Castro) designed the Nova. So the Nova, although a RISC machine,
wasn't the first of the kind. DEC has a clear claim to early RISC
machine with the -5, although you can spend way too much time debating
the details of the definition of RISC.
There is something ironic about the fact that the two most notable RISC
machines were both the smallest, slowest, cheapest computer (PDP-5/8) of
its era, and the biggest, baddest, fastest computer of its era (CDC).
Even better: these two machines were the first two computers I ever
programmed.
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwi...@acm.org.invalid
Kansas City, this was Air Force One. Will you change
our call sign to SAM 27000? -- Col. Ralph Albertazzie
OM
<kevinwi...@acm.org.invalid > wrote:
>There is something ironic about the fact that the two most notable RISC
>machines were both the smallest, slowest, cheapest computer (PDP-5/8) of
>its era, and the biggest, baddest, fastest computer of its era (CDC).
>
>Even better: these two machines were the first two computers I ever
>programmed.
...I personally never worked on any of the PDP series, but I had at
least one Texas U "Cyber" account on the 6600 from the fall of 1976 to
the summer of 1987 - almost 11 years! And most of that was programming
in MNF4, although one semester I got suckered into testing out a
version they called "Fortran 5" that tried to turn Foutran into a
Pascal knockoff, with some elements of top-down design shoehorned in
to frack things up. It was essentially a "hack/cludge" attempt to port
Data General's "Fortran 5" from a Nova to the 6600 that some bright
kid in the Comp Center administration thought would be "easier" to use
while at the same time cutting usage costs for student accounts due to
the compiler being somewhat more optimized than Fortran IV was.
...And that should have been the tip-off that we were fracked. The
first two programs assigned couldn't be completed because we'd
uncovered bugs in the compiler that were so fatal that they actually
defeated some of the safeguards that Texas U added to the 6600 to
prevent massive runtime infinite loops that would eat up an account's
allocated funds in seconds. The first five weeks of the class
consisted in the end of nothing but talking about the language while
we waited for the bugs to be fixed. In the end of the 13 programs we
expected to be assigned - one a week - only 8 were actually assigned,
and the compiler bugs at the end of the semester were so bad that the
prof decided to not include the last two programs in the grading -
only three of the 45 people in the class managed to get theirs to
compile and produce results before the compiler would go tits up!
...At the end of the semester we were asked to evaluate the language's
ease of use, as well as how well the 6600 handled the compiling and
run ops. In both cases the entire class was unanimous - take the
master tapes containing the language and after they'd bulk erased
them, throw them on a pyre as a sacrifice to the gods of programming
in hopes they'd forgive humanity for having created such an atrocity.
Rick Jones
> Rick Jones <rick....@hp.com> wrote:
> :It was in the IBM "PC-RT" which those enough "fortunate" to be at
> :CMU ca 1984-1988 could use as an "Andrew" workstation.
> No, that was a different processor. I think that one was the
> RS/6000.
My dimm memory isn't what it used to be. Perhaps we were both
wrong/right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_6150_RT
rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
OM
<rick....@hp.com> wrote:
>My dimm memory isn't what it used to be. Perhaps we were both
>wrong/right?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_6150_RT
"The IBM RT had a varied life even from its initial announcement. Most
industry watchers considered the RT as "not enough power, too high a
price, and too late". Many thought that the RT was part of IBM's
Personal Computer line of computers. This confusion started with its
initial name, "IBM RT PC"."
...Of course, it didn't help that quite a few of their corporate sales
geeks were pushing the RT as if it were a PC, albeit one intended for
the higher-end academics, science labs, and even as a server-client
base pair for CAT labs. They tried to pawn those off on Texas U back
when the Micro Channel Architecture scam first got off the ground,
with some 32-station testing lab involving the 6152s and one 6150. The
Comp Center eval'd the network, found that a PC XT "server" and 32 "B"
models as "clients" ran rings around it, and that wound up being one
of the major decisions in the beancounters issuing memos to the
various schools of whatever to go with (cr)Apple and the Macs.
Want another example of how down-upon the RT was looked? The Aerospace
Engineering school sent out an intercampus memo offering to trade
*three* RTs for just -one- Trash-80 Model 12...
Scott Hedrick
"Kevin Willoughby" <kevinwi...@acm.org.invalid > wrote in message
news:MPG.22a50d4d8...@news.giganews.com...
> Even better: these two machines were the first two computers I ever
> programmed.
My electronics instructor kept copies of his favorite subroutines on the
wall- in paper tape.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **