Sorta OT: Win 7 64
Spehro Pefhany
Premium netbook (waaay better than the first-generation netbooks--
dual core ultra-low-voltage SU4100 rather than Atom N270 CPU, 13.3"
display and long battery life). It's reasonably snappy, though you
won't be doing serious 3D CAD with it.
Upsides:
- most of my XP-compatible apps installed okay. A few such as Skype I
had to use a newer version that has some downside (such as
advertisements).
- ACDSee 2.2 (ca. 1997) works great.
- Working drivers for laser printers were available, though not
automatic (IIRC, I installed a Vista -64 driver for one).
- User interface is not too irritating (though why they got rid
of the 'up' directory button on Explorer for Vista and Win 7
I'll never know.. there's a keyboard shortcut that does it.
- 64 bit OS
Downsides:
- Won't run any of my DOS command-line assemblers directly, nor
can editor spawn DOS-based programs 8-(
Supposedly this can be fixed by upgrading to Win 7 Professional or
Ultimate at $85-$150 more and downloading a 500M program, but I'm
not eager to waste that money times however many computers will need
it (ideally, available on all). It creates a virtual machine
running XP, so there will be a lot of issues with trying to
automate things.. but!!
... when you read the fine print, this (new) CPU does not have
hardware assisted virtualization, so it won't work at all. 8-(
Another alternative would be to run a VMWare virtual machine
with XP or Win2K (or FreeDOS or DOS 6.x) on it, but that's messy
too, and no cheaper. Might give it a try anyway.
A free option is to install DOSBox which does work with my Metalink
command-line assembler (about 20 years old). Have to 'mount'
directories etc. so communication between the virtual machine and
real not so easy. I don't see a way
to integrate it seamlessly with an editor running under Win7, but
it will at least allow old object code to be re-created, if
necessary.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
John Larkin
You make a good case for sticking with XP for now.
I have tons of handy DOS apps!
John
Joel Koltner
news:4vsmj5hldp0u8i0jc...@4ax.com...
> Supposedly this can be fixed by upgrading to Win 7 Professional or
> Ultimate at $85-$150 more and downloading a 500M program, but I'm
> not eager to waste that money times however many computers will need
> it (ideally, available on all). It creates a virtual machine
> running XP, so there will be a lot of issues with trying to
> automate things.. but!!
I like your DOSBox idea here?
> ... when you read the fine print, this (new) CPU does not have
> hardware assisted virtualization, so it won't work at all. 8-(
You might check out the list of VM tools here -- some are free:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_platform_virtual_machines .
...although VMWare is pretty good for the money. :-)
---Joel
Joel Koltner
news:m9bnj5dhndacpg0q6...@4ax.com...
> You make a good case for sticking with XP for now.
>
> I have tons of handy DOS apps!
Note that Spehro's problems are caused by running the *64-bit* version of
Win7 -- the *32-bit* version will still run old DOS apps, AIUI.
Unfortunately a lot of manufacturers seem to install the 64-bit version by
default, even though I suspect it provides no benefit to the vast majority of
users at this point.
WangoTango
zapwireD...@yahoo.com says...
version of Vista ever was. I have been using Win7 32 bit on my test
bench with no problems with any application that ran under XP and I like
some of the new GUI features.
I use DOS-Box to support our ancient products and tools, it works pretty
good and you can even install a copy of Win 3.1(1) on it too.
Archimedes' Lever
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>- User interface is not too irritating (though why they got rid
> of the 'up' directory button on Explorer for Vista and Win 7
> I'll never know.. there's a keyboard shortcut that does it.
Dumb ass. All you have to do is look at the header bar and the
location. To move up one directory, simply click on that directory in
the title bar. It will always be ONE term before the last term on the
list.
lurch
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>Downsides:
>
>- Won't run any of my DOS command-line assemblers directly, nor
> can editor spawn DOS-based programs 8-(
Ever heard of DOSBox? Virtual PC?
An emulator is better than cmd.exe ever was or ever will be.
It was the only was I could get my old OrCAD app to run with a higher
resolution (800x600 VESA) graphics driver.
I also run Tango PCB in one.
You would use NET Use commands to make hooks to your network hardware,
like printers.
lurch
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
> A free option is to install DOSBox which does work with my Metalink
> command-line assembler (about 20 years old). Have to 'mount'
> directories etc. so communication between the virtual machine and
> real not so easy. I don't see a way
Bullshit. Making the needed hooks to "mounted directories", etc. is
EASY. A simple startup script no different than config.sys or
autoexec.bat.
DOSBox was ALWAYS quite easy to use, once you figure out that yes, you
MUST mount up any volumes which you wish to use while "in it".
Stop making it harder than it really is. There is no reason that ANY
of your assembler apps would not run.
lurch
Jeez, you retarded twits take one IDIOT's failure and blanket kill your
decision to check out the new OS? It doesn't get much more STUPID than
that move.
You are an even bigger idiot than you have already previously proven
yourself to be.
The figure seems to grow nearly every time you open your mouth.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> In article <hQO_m.474106$Jp1....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>,
> zapwireD...@yahoo.com says...
>> "John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>> news:m9bnj5dhndacpg0q6...@4ax.com...
>>> You make a good case for sticking with XP for now.
>>>
>>> I have tons of handy DOS apps!
>> Note that Spehro's problems are caused by running the *64-bit* version of
>> Win7 -- the *32-bit* version will still run old DOS apps, AIUI.
>>
>> Unfortunately a lot of manufacturers seem to install the 64-bit version by
>> default, even though I suspect it provides no benefit to the vast majority of
>> users at this point.
>>
>>
> Yep, the 32 bit version is a lot more XP compatible that the 32 bit
> version of Vista ever was. I have been using Win7 32 bit on my test
> bench with no problems with any application that ran under XP and I like
> some of the new GUI features.
The 32 bit version might be a lot more compatible, but it's a dead end.
64 bit is the way to go and will likely remain so for at least 10 years.
I don't see anyone going to 128 bit - the future of the MS OS is multicore.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Jan Panteltje
NeoPax <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in <7q238u...@mid.individual.net>:
>WangoTango wrote:
>> In article <hQO_m.474106$Jp1....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>,
>> zapwireD...@yahoo.com says...
>>> "John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>> news:m9bnj5dhndacpg0q6...@4ax.com...
>>>> You make a good case for sticking with XP for now.
>>>>
>>>> I have tons of handy DOS apps!
>>> Note that Spehro's problems are caused by running the *64-bit* version of
>>> Win7 -- the *32-bit* version will still run old DOS apps, AIUI.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately a lot of manufacturers seem to install the 64-bit version by
>>> default, even though I suspect it provides no benefit to the vast majority of
>>> users at this point.
>>>
>>>
>> Yep, the 32 bit version is a lot more XP compatible that the 32 bit
>> version of Vista ever was. I have been using Win7 32 bit on my test
>> bench with no problems with any application that ran under XP and I like
>> some of the new GUI features.
>
>The 32 bit version might be a lot more compatible, but it's a dead end.
>64 bit is the way to go and will likely remain so for at least 10 years.
>I don't see anyone going to 128 bit - the future of the MS OS is multicore.
The future of the MS OS is zero.
Phil Hobbs
DOSBox isn't that hard to use unless you like your directory structures
the way they are. It's also slow as molasses and (iirc) has no
full-screen support.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
Paul Keinanen
<dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The 32 bit version might be a lot more compatible, but it's a dead end.
>64 bit is the way to go and will likely remain so for at least 10 years.
>I don't see anyone going to 128 bit - the future of the MS OS is multicore.
There are extremely few situations, in which a 64 bit virtual address
space will have some advantage compared to the 32 bit virtual address
space.
The main use of a large virtual address space is using memory mapped
files. When using memory mapped files, the data is not accessed using
read/write function calls, but instead, the file is treated as a
multiple gigabyte array.
To get some data from somewhere in the file, just use an assignment
statement to reference that location. The virtual memory mechanism
will detect that the page is not in physical memory, it will cause a
page fault, which will load the page into physical memory and the
assignment statement can be completed.
To modify the file content, just modify the memory location in the
huge array. When the physical memory contains a lot of "dirty" pages,
the pages are written back to the original file (not the page file) to
free up pages for new accesses.
While a 32 bit system could in principle handle 2 or 3 GiB memory
mapped files, in practice, the virtual memory fragmentation in
Windows NT due to the huge number of DLLs loaded at fixed addresses,
makes it hard to find even 100 MiB of continuous virtual address
space.
Unless you are using data base or video files larger than a few
hundreds MiB as memory mapped files, I do not understand, what is the
point of using 64 bit virtual addressing.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I'd be willing to bet that it is still the major OS for desktops in 10
years time. I also think it likely that Windows 7 is effectively the end
of the line.
Joel Koltner
news:cumnj55shhu7dr1h8...@4ax.com...
> The main use of a large virtual address space is using memory mapped
> files.
OK, but in any decent object-oriented langauge you can do enough operator
overloading that at least the semantics of accessing a big file appear to be
pointer operations, even though that's not what's really happening. (Plus
with this approach you can use 256 bit pointers if you feel like it and access
every single electron in the universe...) What's the advantage of a true
memory-mapped file implementation? A bit of performance?
(Granted, I do think it's kinda cool how, when you "load" a program in
Windows, it doesn't do any loading at all -- it just memory maps the file and
waits for the page faults to come in to perform the actual loading...)
---Joel
Jan Panteltje
NeoPax <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in <7q27as...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>> Yep, the 32 bit version is a lot more XP compatible that the 32 bit
>>>> version of Vista ever was. I have been using Win7 32 bit on my test
>>>> bench with no problems with any application that ran under XP and I like
>>>> some of the new GUI features.
>>> The 32 bit version might be a lot more compatible, but it's a dead end.
>>> 64 bit is the way to go and will likely remain so for at least 10 years.
>>> I don't see anyone going to 128 bit - the future of the MS OS is multicore.
>>
>> The future of the MS OS is zero.
>
>I'd be willing to bet that it is still the major OS for desktops in 10
>years time. I also think it likely that Windows 7 is effectively the end
>of the line.
>
>--
>Dirk
Could you elaborate on that?
MS brings out something new each few years, say each 3 years, win 95 win 98 win 2000 etc..
So if win 7 is the end of the line, then in your view it should last 10 years?
Hardware will be a lot different in ten years...
I really do not know here it goes, 1 GHz CPU is enough for multimedia, 2 GHz
for HD video, lower power, smaller OS, small versions of Linux.
You see Intel now also with some light Linux version (forgot the name)
for their low power laptop processors.
More powerful integrated graphics.
Hardly need an OS at all.
Maybe Linux can just be in the firmware (FLASH) sold with the correct drivers with hardware.
No more need for MS bloat.
This is already so, my eeePC shows that it is possible.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:50:54 +0000) it happened Dirk Bruere at
> NeoPax <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in <7q27as...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>>>> Yep, the 32 bit version is a lot more XP compatible that the 32 bit
>>>>> version of Vista ever was. I have been using Win7 32 bit on my test
>>>>> bench with no problems with any application that ran under XP and I like
>>>>> some of the new GUI features.
>>>> The 32 bit version might be a lot more compatible, but it's a dead end.
>>>> 64 bit is the way to go and will likely remain so for at least 10 years.
>>>> I don't see anyone going to 128 bit - the future of the MS OS is multicore.
>>> The future of the MS OS is zero.
>> I'd be willing to bet that it is still the major OS for desktops in 10
>> years time. I also think it likely that Windows 7 is effectively the end
>> of the line.
>>
>> --
>> Dirk
>
> Could you elaborate on that?
> MS brings out something new each few years, say each 3 years, win 95 win 98 win 2000 etc..
> So if win 7 is the end of the line, then in your view it should last 10 years?
> Hardware will be a lot different in ten years...
I think the only major difference in h/w will be multiple cores, plus
more extensive use of GPU style cores for dedicated operations besides
graphics - think CUDA intergrated at OS level?
XP has been around for 9 years and I will probably not upgrade for
around 2. For most people XP is/was "good enough". From what I read Win
7 is essentially a tidying up job with no new major features. It may
well be that 7 is "good enough" for a lot more than 10 years whether MS
likes it or not.
> I really do not know here it goes, 1 GHz CPU is enough for multimedia, 2 GHz
> for HD video, lower power, smaller OS, small versions of Linux.
> You see Intel now also with some light Linux version (forgot the name)
> for their low power laptop processors.
> More powerful integrated graphics.
> Hardly need an OS at all.
> Maybe Linux can just be in the firmware (FLASH) sold with the correct drivers with hardware.
> No more need for MS bloat.
> This is already so, my eeePC shows that it is possible.
Well, up to now games has been the driving force at the top end of the
market and they can still eat up all the processing power thrown at
them. Add in larger screen resolution, 3D, AI characters, physics
engines and the need for power will still be around in 10 years when we
might have 128 core CPUs ex-Larrabee (sp?) style.
Dave Platt
>hundreds MiB as memory mapped files, I do not understand, what is the
>point of using 64 bit virtual addressing.
It's also beneficial on servers and for handling some very large
scientific applications, in which the ability to have more than 4 GB
of memory space available to each individual program/process can be
very useful.
The way some operating systems have been going lately, you may need
more than 4 gigs of addressible memory just to handle the amount of "eye
candy" that the OS insists on putting on the desktop :-)
64-bit support *ought* to be essentially irrelevant to the sort of
work that one wants to do on a typical personal computer, but there's
so much momentum behind the Bloat This Up With Lots Of Bells And
Whistles mentality that smaller systems just can't handle the guff
anymore.
--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
lurch
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>On 12/30/2009 5:16 PM, lurch wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:25:01 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
>> <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>>
>>> A free option is to install DOSBox which does work with my Metalink
>>> command-line assembler (about 20 years old). Have to 'mount'
>>> directories etc. so communication between the virtual machine and
>>> real not so easy. I don't see a way
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. Making the needed hooks to "mounted directories", etc. is
>> EASY. A simple startup script no different than config.sys or
>> autoexec.bat.
>>
>> DOSBox was ALWAYS quite easy to use, once you figure out that yes, you
>> MUST mount up any volumes which you wish to use while "in it".
>>
>> Stop making it harder than it really is. There is no reason that ANY
>> of your assembler apps would not run.
>
>DOSBox isn't that hard to use unless you like your directory structures
>the way they are. It's also slow as molasses and (iirc) has no
>full-screen support.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs
You can re-construct any directory structure you have or use or want.
lurch
wrote:
Better, quicker processing of encrypted files, for one. Particularly
considering the encryption levels we use these days.
lurch
<pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>This is already so, my eeePC shows that it is possible.
Now try to do some real computing with it.
Joel Koltner
news:hhgpod$7uj$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Hardly need an OS at all.
Isn't that Google Chrome? :-)
> This is already so, my eeePC shows that it is possible.
GEOS back in the late '80s was pretty comparable to Windows 3 or thereabouts,
all in 64kB: http://toastytech.com/guis/c64g.html
---Joel
Phil Hobbs
But I don't want to reconstruct it, I just want to use it. DOSBox makes
you keep copies of stuff, which is a horrible kluge.
And did I mention it's as slow as molasses in January?
Cheers
Phil Hobbz
lurch
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
No, it DOES NOT!
When you start it up, YOU mount the directories you wish to use, and
they can be the same as they are from a DOS prompt. There are NO copies
of anything, if the operator sets it up right. That is what start-up
scripts are for.
>
>And did I mention it's as slow as molasses in January?
It would run ANY app made for DOS just as fast as it ran on the box it
was made to run under.
Being slow by comparison to what you are currently used to does not
even relate.
Spehro Pefhany
<lu...@yourangcousinitslibrary.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:25:01 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
><spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>
>> A free option is to install DOSBox which does work with my Metalink
>> command-line assembler (about 20 years old). Have to 'mount'
>> directories etc. so communication between the virtual machine and
>> real not so easy. I don't see a way
>
>
> Bullshit. Making the needed hooks to "mounted directories", etc. is
>EASY. A simple startup script no different than config.sys or
>autoexec.bat.
Yeah, I know all about that.
> DOSBox was ALWAYS quite easy to use, once you figure out that yes, you
>MUST mount up any volumes which you wish to use while "in it".
>
> Stop making it harder than it really is. There is no reason that ANY
>of your assembler apps would not run.
From what I can tell the edit-compile-download cycle cannot run on one
machine with DOSBox (Using Ultraedit, say, as an IDE), No way (AFAIK)
to automate the tool interactions. I'd be happy to be wrong about
this. Isn't there some way to encapsulate a 16-bit DOS console
application so it runs from the Win7 64 command line? It would have to
accept command line parameters, ouptut on stdout and allow file
operations (serial communication would be good too).
VMWare Workstation with XP Pro installed will allow all the tools to
be installed to at least work reasonably efficiently with the old
apps. It's pretty slick, and fires up reasonably fast, much better
than dual-boot in many ways. Seems inefficient to have things
installed multiple times.
This machine happened to come with 64-bit Windows 7 of the highest
level that makes sense (Premium) pre-installed, but I'm also
evaluating whether I can stand having this on a new kick-a** i7
LGA1366 triple-channel machine. More RAM than the 3.x G maximum under
XP is desirable (at least 12G would be good, 24G is still way too
expensive) so I'm thinking 64-bit Win7 (I know 64-bit Vista works well
for Solidworks and Solid Edge), and I think we have Altium running on
one such machine, but wither the olde stuff... either multiple
physical machines or multiple virtual machines seem to be the only
way.
Phil Hobbs
The point being that it shouldn't be necessary. It would be nice if it
were as easy to use as DOS, for instance.
>>
>> And did I mention it's as slow as molasses in January?
>
> It would run ANY app made for DOS just as fast as it ran on the box it
> was made to run under.
Wow! So I can use my multi-GHz multicore CPU with gigabytes of memory
and it'll be as fast as an 80286! Cool!
>
> Being slow by comparison to what you are currently used to does not
> even relate.
To you, maybe. Under OS/2 and even XP, old DOS apps *fly*. I like that.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
lurch
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>The point being that it shouldn't be necessary.
Sure it is. It is an EMULATOR. That means that YOU have to tell it
ALL of its operating parameters. THEN, it does what you want. There is
NO emulator anywhere that magically knows what the user wants from it.
> It would be nice if it
>were as easy to use as DOS, for instance.
Making a setup file so that every launch gets you what you want is not
too much to ask for, ya dope. Particularly since the emulator does not
know what the user wants AT ALL.
THEREFORE, it is up to the user to set up the MACHINE emulator the way
he wants the MACHINE to run.
THAT is why they do not do it the way you want. They do it period. It
is up to the user to set it up for his own use. PERIOD.
You goddamned point and click pussies make me laugh and cry at the same
time.
Tim Williams
news:4B3C0A92...@electrooptical.net...
> Wow! So I can use my multi-GHz multicore CPU with gigabytes of memory and
> it'll be as fast as an 80286! Cool!
Are you running with the default CPU cycles? IIRC, it defaults to around
3000, which is roughly 8086 speed on my box. Watch it on Task Manager while
cranking it up to, say, 10-20k. When it reaches ~80% CPU usage you're using
pretty much everything. Then it should run nice and toasty (more like a
Pentium).
Protected mode programs all run at full power (~100% CPU), which is probably
Pentium range.
Mounting is easy, just run it with the current directory as an argument.
Set up a shortcut and configure it to do everything you need to start with
in one click.
I don't know what you're whining about directories for, it's your own fault
if you screwed up your directories. They have the same damn path in
Windows.
Tim
--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Robert Baer
Jan Panteltje
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<9wS_m.508254$ua.2...@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com>:
>"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:hhgpod$7uj$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Hardly need an OS at all.
>
>Isn't that Google Chrome? :-)
Well, Chrome is one way t odo that, but somehow I think people will
like t orun and own application software on their own OPC.
that is also why I tin 'cloud' computin gis silly.
I would not trust my data to be scattered all over the world.
For customers yo ucannot even do that.
It is great for espionage, CIA orwhatever can know and control everthing.
>> This is already so, my eeePC shows that it is possible.
>
>GEOS back in the late '80s was pretty comparable to Windows 3 or thereabouts,
>all in 64kB: http://toastytech.com/guis/c64g.html
That is nice, I never had a Commodore 64.
I learned BASIC on a Commodore PET at work...
Then for myself I bought a Sinclair ZX80, and some ZX81s, thode had a good BASIC.
Then I modified it ,added floppy controller, EPROM programmer, sound, real CRT, the works,
and wrote a CP/M clone so I could run C/80 (C compiler on it at home).
Added an IBM keybord to it.
I also did a multitasking window system for it, but the 64 kB was full then...
No more space for applications. Moved to a real PC.
Amazing they did that GEOS GUI in so little memory.
>---Joel
>
>
Jan Panteltje
NeoPax <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in <7q28n1...@mid.individual.net>:
>I think the only major difference in h/w will be multiple cores, plus
>more extensive use of GPU style cores for dedicated operations besides
>graphics - think CUDA intergrated at OS level?
>
>XP has been around for 9 years and I will probably not upgrade for
>around 2. For most people XP is/was "good enough". From what I read Win
>7 is essentially a tidying up job with no new major features. It may
>well be that 7 is "good enough" for a lot more than 10 years whether MS
>likes it or not.
>
>> I really do not know here it goes, 1 GHz CPU is enough for multimedia, 2 GHz
>> for HD video, lower power, smaller OS, small versions of Linux.
>> You see Intel now also with some light Linux version (forgot the name)
>> for their low power laptop processors.
>> More powerful integrated graphics.
>> Hardly need an OS at all.
>> Maybe Linux can just be in the firmware (FLASH) sold with the correct drivers with hardware.
>> No more need for MS bloat.
>> This is already so, my eeePC shows that it is possible.
>
>Well, up to now games has been the driving force at the top end of the
>market and they can still eat up all the processing power thrown at
>them. Add in larger screen resolution, 3D, AI characters, physics
>engines and the need for power will still be around in 10 years when we
>might have 128 core CPUs ex-Larrabee (sp?) style.
>
>--
>Dirk
Yes, games, did not think about that, and 3D games too.
Problem with multi cores is that after 5 or 6 it becomes very hard to get more speed,
Intel cancelled Larrabee, maybe they figured that out.
Yes, more powerful graphics ships.
It seems now that Cell is also dead, rumour goes that Sony will use a more general architecture,
perhaps based on PPC (still IBM) for the PS4.
Cell had 6 or 8 cores (cannot remember), so if the CPU has 8 cores .. no more Cell.
What do you get?
1 core graphics, one core H264 decoding / encoding, one core OS, one core application,
one core maybe specialised I/O, and the GPU.
To split it up even further some tasks running on separate cores, but not so many
tasks normally run that need high throughput and their own CPU...
So 10 cores and the speed improvement curve no longer goes up so fast.
People do not believe that when I say that, but it is simple logic.
A PC is just a machine, specifically to to some tasks.
Video editing is very difficult to speed up with more cores,
and video editing is the thing the masses want...
And lot of encoding is now done by the graphics units,.
Apart from highly specialised professional stuff, the masses need no super computing.
A few orders of magnitude more can be achieved by using FPGA and configurable logic to
speed up CPU intensive operations that can be sort of vectorised.
And that is it.
Unless somebody comes up with a totally new application, OK:
Visual recognition, voice recognition, brain interfaces... 3D imaging of the brain so you
can see what a person thinks (nice for airport security LOL), privacy will go away,
you will get a number (if you do not already have one, here every body has), be
a record in a database, selected on your DNA for what education you get and work you will do,
oops, the machines will take over because we fail to often, Terminator 1
hehe
WangoTango
says...
> WangoTango wrote:
> > In article <hQO_m.474106$Jp1....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>,
> > zapwireD...@yahoo.com says...
> >> "John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
> >> news:m9bnj5dhndacpg0q6...@4ax.com...
> >>> You make a good case for sticking with XP for now.
> >>>
> >>> I have tons of handy DOS apps!
> >> Note that Spehro's problems are caused by running the *64-bit* version of
> >> Win7 -- the *32-bit* version will still run old DOS apps, AIUI.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately a lot of manufacturers seem to install the 64-bit version by
> >> default, even though I suspect it provides no benefit to the vast majority of
> >> users at this point.
> >>
> >>
> > Yep, the 32 bit version is a lot more XP compatible that the 32 bit
> > version of Vista ever was. I have been using Win7 32 bit on my test
> > bench with no problems with any application that ran under XP and I like
> > some of the new GUI features.
>
> The 32 bit version might be a lot more compatible, but it's a dead end.
> 64 bit is the way to go and will likely remain so for at least 10 years.
> I don't see anyone going to 128 bit - the future of the MS OS is multicore.
>
>
apps. In fact I am posting this from an XP virtual machine.
An i7 extreme with 12GB of RAM and a 4TB striped/mirrored array can run
a lot of stuff really fast.
BUT, the test bench has to run a lot of different apps, supporting a lot
of old hardware, and a lot of it doesn't come with signed drivers and
that would kill an install under 64 bit Vista or Win 7.
I did try running Vista64 with VMWare on the test bench, it worked, but
I get the same results from just running Win7 32 bit and not worrying
about it TODAY, and that is the bottom line. I need to get work done
NOW. I'll deal with the future as it arrives.
Jim
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
We use Linux at work for our embedded stuff.
We also use windows, and use it for the user interface on a lot of mil
gear.
You two are nothing more than a couple of immature twits that happened
to garner a LITTLE bit of computer science education at some point in
your lives. The events after that, however, are very dishonorable.
You current mentality is about as immature as an intelligent adult can
get. It is this jack-off at the mouth mentality that many of today's
"adults" express that proves to me that most of you idiots are about as
immature as an adult can get, despite your numerical age, the level of
education you have, or the gamut of experience you may have.
Instead of dissin' Billy and his good works that have employed hundreds
of thousands of folks for the last three decades, maybe you idiots should
dis yourselves. You can rest assured that *I* always will be dissing
your stupid fucks when you pop off with retarded horseshit.
Why don't you tell us some of the things that you have made billions on,
so we can put you two utter retards in the fucking barrel?
Better yet, fuck off and die, you know nothing, retarded pussy boy
idiots.
lurch
wrote:
>BUT, the test bench has to run a lot of different apps, supporting a lot
>of old hardware, and a lot of it doesn't come with signed drivers and
>that would kill an install under 64 bit Vista or Win 7.
Actually, Windows 7 allows for the installation of an app while telling
the OS to ignore the unsigned drivers.
I am surprised that you did not know that fact.
Then again, with all the "M$" hater type gang boy retard mentality
twits in here, I guess it shouldn't surprise me.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I started my career in parallel processing and even then (1970s) it was
well known that tightly coupled MIMD systems did not scale beyond 32 max.
> A PC is just a machine, specifically to to some tasks.
> Video editing is very difficult to speed up with more cores,
> and video editing is the thing the masses want...
I think video editing is something that could benefit from multiple
cores, but the s/w will have to be a bit more complex.
> And lot of encoding is now done by the graphics units,.
> Apart from highly specialised professional stuff, the masses need no super computing.
> A few orders of magnitude more can be achieved by using FPGA and configurable logic to
> speed up CPU intensive operations that can be sort of vectorised.
> And that is it.
Thing is, most applications that need vast computing power tend to be
SIMD that can be spread across multiple cores quite easily.
> Unless somebody comes up with a totally new application, OK:
> Visual recognition, voice recognition, brain interfaces... 3D imaging of the brain so you
Voice recognition and language translation will be the next big app that
requires massive power. Right now though the s/w is still not quite up
to it.
> can see what a person thinks (nice for airport security LOL), privacy will go away,
> you will get a number (if you do not already have one, here every body has), be
> a record in a database, selected on your DNA for what education you get and work you will do,
> oops, the machines will take over because we fail to often, Terminator 1
> hehe
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Are you Phil Allison?
WangoTango
lu...@yourangcousinitslibrary.org says...
little known boot time option.
Then it will ask if you want to ignore, but the default is to NOT give
that option. I think it must be enabled on a boot by boot basis too. I
would rather just load the 32 bit, since the apps are all 32bit anyway,
and there is only 4GB or RAM installed.
But, then again, you obviously know much more about what my computing
requirements are than I do.
You must love USENET, it forces people to see your BS, gives you
interaction that is lacking in your real life, at least until they add
you to their killfile.
By bye
Joel Koltner
> Well, Chrome is one way t odo that, but somehow I think people will
> like t orun and own application software on their own OPC.
Agreed, people like you and I certainly will.
> that is also why I tin 'cloud' computin gis silly.
> I would not trust my data to be scattered all over the world.
> For customers yo ucannot even do that.
To some extent there already is cloud computing, it's just that companies
maintain their own infrastructure internally rather than just renting generic
servers and Internet bandwidth from Google or whomever. Indeed, I know
several people who work from home and they're just "remote desktopping" into a
server at their employer's central location, and you see a lot of banks and
stores using the same model.
> It is great for espionage, CIA orwhatever can know and control everthing.
AES-256 is our friend?
Your exploits with a ZX81 sound quite impressive. I remember visiting the
annual engineering expo at the local university as a kid in high school and
being quite intrigued by how many ZX81s, VIC 20s, and even a few Commodore 64s
had been majorly hacked up to make more general-purpose hardware controllers.
(The guys who were flush enough to buy or otherwise had access to Apple IIs
generally managed to obtain commercial I/O cards, I guess... :-) ).
Engineering expos are a great place to find potential new hires... you can
usually figure out in about 5 minutes who really did the work on a project and
who was just there for the college credits.
> Amazing they did that GEOS GUI in so little memory.
It was kinda slow on a stock C-64 with only a 1541 floppy drive -- a 256k RAM
expansion unit made it a lot snappier.
---Joel
Jan Panteltje
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<e75%m.418845$8m4.3...@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com>:
>To some extent there already is cloud computing, it's just that companies
>maintain their own infrastructure internally rather than just renting generic
>servers and Internet bandwidth from Google or whomever. Indeed, I know
>several people who work from home and they're just "remote desktopping" into a
>server at their employer's central location, and you see a lot of banks and
>stores using the same model.
>
>> It is great for espionage, CIA orwhatever can know and control everthing.
>
>AES-256 is our friend?
Well, there exists no 'perfect' encryption, here is something that may make you think,
you know about Quantum cryptography, and exchanging secret keys that 'cannot' be intercepted?
26th Chaos Communication Congress: How you can build an eavesdropper for a quantum crypto systems
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2009/Fahrplan/events/3576.en.html
Related article in German:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/26C3-Forscher-demonstrieren-genialen-Quanten-Hack-894136.html
>Your exploits with a ZX81 sound quite impressive. I remember visiting the
>annual engineering expo at the local university as a kid in high school and
>being quite intrigued by how many ZX81s, VIC 20s, and even a few Commodore 64s
>had been majorly hacked up to make more general-purpose hardware controllers.
>(The guys who were flush enough to buy or otherwise had access to Apple IIs
>generally managed to obtain commercial I/O cards, I guess... :-) ).
I did put some stuff on the website, a Z80 disassembler, and a CP/M clone I wrote:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/z80/index.html
Both for the modified ZX81 initially.
>Engineering expos are a great place to find potential new hires... you can
>usually figure out in about 5 minutes who really did the work on a project and
>who was just there for the college credits.
It is always nice meet somebody who actually has some real hands on experience :-)
>> Amazing they did that GEOS GUI in so little memory.
>
>It was kinda slow on a stock C-64 with only a 1541 floppy drive -- a 256k RAM
>expansion unit made it a lot snappier.
Those early 8 bit processors were very code efficient.
I loved the Z80 LDIR, OTIR, CPIR instructions to process or I/O a lot of bytes at the same time.
WangoTango
zapwireD...@yahoo.com says...
Hey, the original OS-9 (NOT Apple's) was pretty impressive.
I ran it on a 128K RadioShack CoCo for years.
A nice GUI for the day and it multi-tasked fairly well.
I saw some ad space in a trades years ago from them, it was ported to
the '386 and branded OS-9000. Might still be out there, haven't Googled
it....
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> On a sunny day (Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:24:24 -0800) it happened "Joel Koltner"
> <zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <e75%m.418845$8m4.3...@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com>:
>
>> To some extent there already is cloud computing, it's just that companies
>> maintain their own infrastructure internally rather than just renting generic
>> servers and Internet bandwidth from Google or whomever. Indeed, I know
>> several people who work from home and they're just "remote desktopping" into a
>> server at their employer's central location, and you see a lot of banks and
>> stores using the same model.
>>
>>> It is great for espionage, CIA orwhatever can know and control everthing.
>> AES-256 is our friend?
>
> Well, there exists no 'perfect' encryption, here is something that may make you think,
> you know about Quantum cryptography, and exchanging secret keys that 'cannot' be intercepted?
>
> 26th Chaos Communication Congress: How you can build an eavesdropper for a quantum crypto systems
> http://events.ccc.de/congress/2009/Fahrplan/events/3576.en.html
>
> Related article in German:
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/26C3-Forscher-demonstrieren-genialen-Quanten-Hack-894136.html
If you do not have to give a decryption key to anyone else then get a
cryptographically secure random number generator.
Create you own megabyte size key and XOR the documents you send to the
cloud. There is no way anyone, ever, can break that encoding without the
key.
Jan Panteltje
NeoPax <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in <7q46va...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>> It is great for espionage, CIA orwhatever can know and control everthing.
>>> AES-256 is our friend?
>>
>> Well, there exists no 'perfect' encryption, here is something that may make you think,
>> you know about Quantum cryptography, and exchanging secret keys that 'cannot' be intercepted?
>>
>> 26th Chaos Communication Congress: How you can build an eavesdropper for a quantum crypto systems
>> http://events.ccc.de/congress/2009/Fahrplan/events/3576.en.html
>>
>> Related article in German:
>> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/26C3-Forscher-demonstrieren-genialen-Quanten-Hack-894136.html
>
>If you do not have to give a decryption key to anyone else then get a
>cryptographically secure random number generator.
>Create you own megabyte size key and XOR the documents you send to the
>cloud. There is no way anyone, ever, can break that encoding without the
>key.
You are in the UK.
in the UK the current law is that you have to hand over the key to officials
if they want to see what your stuff is.
Else you go to jail.
An other example of 'democrazy'.
So, say you developed a revolutionary new way to do something,
firmware, software, for say a customer in some other country.
Now UK gov wants to know the details so they have the edge.
They ask the key.
One time pad is not secure for an other reason too, because such a big
key you need to store somewhere, they will search your place, take the computers,
steal or obtain it in a legal way.
There exists no secure encryption.
That does not mean you should not use it though :-)
John Larkin
<pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On a sunny day (Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:24:24 -0800) it happened "Joel Koltner"
><zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote in
><e75%m.418845$8m4.3...@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com>:
>
>>To some extent there already is cloud computing, it's just that companies
>>maintain their own infrastructure internally rather than just renting generic
>>servers and Internet bandwidth from Google or whomever. Indeed, I know
>>several people who work from home and they're just "remote desktopping" into a
>>server at their employer's central location, and you see a lot of banks and
>>stores using the same model.
>>
>>> It is great for espionage, CIA orwhatever can know and control everthing.
>>
>>AES-256 is our friend?
>
>Well, there exists no 'perfect' encryption,
One-time pad is perfect... if you do it right.
John
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Well, I'm mainly thinking about the security of trade secrets uploaded
to external servers. Google springs to mind. Most espionage is economic,
and the NSA (for example) spends quite a bit of its time on that sort of
stuff.
krw
No, DimBulb is his idiot half-brother.
krw
The problem being that you also need a perfect pad. ;-) Of course
it's almost always easier to attack a cryptosystem somewhere other
than the encryption itself.
Phil Hobbs
'Lurch' is a pretty well-chosen nym. Congrats.
Getting that worked up about other people's taste in computing--even if
you knew what they actually were, which you don't--is not a particularly
good sign. But have a happy New Year.
Cheers
Michael A. Terrell
No, he's dimbulb, AKA 'Always Wrong'
THE DIMBULB SCORECARD
Abbey Somebody <abno...@castlefrankenstein.org>
AnimalMagic <Anima...@petersbackyard.org>
Archimedes' Lever <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org>
AtTheEndofMyRope <AtTheEnd...@AtTheEndofMyRope.org>
AwlSome Auger <AwlSom...@BuyOneGetOneFree.org>
Bart! <B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig**!.org>
BigBalls <BiggestB...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
BillyPilgrim <BillyP...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Bungalow Bill <Bugal...@AbbeyRoad.UKCOM>
Capt. Cave Man <ItIsSoEasyAC...@upyers.org>
CellShocked <cells...@thecellvalueattheendofthespreadsheet.org>
ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org>
Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
<thesli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Corbomite Carrie <Corb...@maneuver.org>
DarkMatter <DarkM...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
DarkSucker <DarkS...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Do I really need to say? <ra...@thescree.org>
Dorothy with the Red Shoes on <Dor...@notinkansas.org>
Dr. Heywood R. Floyd <Hey...@thebarattheendofthemonolith.org>
FatBytestard <FatByt...@somewheronyourharddrive.org>
FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor <FunkShun...@yermomma.org>
FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor <FunkShu...@yermomma.org>
George Orr <Gerg...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement
<GoldIntermetall...@youdontknowjack.org>
Hattori Hanzo <Outint...@billsbackyard.org>
Herbert John \Jackie\" Gleason" <BufordT...@Texarkanacops.gov>
HiggsField <higgd...@whutthableapduyoukno.org>
IAmTheSlime <TheSlimeFr...@oozingacrossyourlivingroomfloor.org>
ItsASecretDummy <secreta...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Jupiter Jaq <Jupit...@BuyOneGetOneFree.org>
Kai <k...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
LargeMarge <Large...@thetentwoposition.org>
life imitates life <past...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
lurch <lu...@yourangcousinitslibrary.org>
MadManMoon <TheWholePl...@hereandnow.org>
MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet <DoNotAttemptT...@anytime.org>
Massiv...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org
<Massiv...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
MeowSayTongue <MeowSa...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Mr.Eko <ekoint...@lostisland.org>
Mr. Haney <mrh...@thebarattheendofthefarmroad.org>
Mycelium <myceli...@underyourshrooms.org>
Mycelium <myce...@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org>
Neanderthal <da...@gottafindawomanrighton.org>
OutsideObserver <Stand And Del...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Pieyed Piper <pieye...@thebongshopattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Phat Bytestard <PhatBy...@getinmahharddrive.org>
RoyLFuchs <RoyL...@urfargingicehole.org>
scorpius
<scor...@thewormholethatemptiesontheothersideoftheuniverse.org>
SkyPilot <some...@theedgeofspace.org>
SomeKindOfWonderful
<SomeKindO...@allthegirlsintheworldbeware.org>
Son of a Sea Cook <NotaBr...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
SoothSayer <SayS...@TheMonastery.org>
Spurious Response <Spurious...@cleansignal.org>
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt <Zarat...@thusspoke.org>
Sum Ting Wong <SumTi...@thebarattheendoftheVenusianLightnigBolt.org>
Sum Ting Wong
<SumTi...@thebarattheendoftheVenusianLightnigBoltmonolith.org>
SuspendedInGaffa <suspende...@kateshouse.org>
The Great Attractor
<Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org>
TheGlimmerMan <justag...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TheJoker <Leonardoofthe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
The Keeper of the Key to The Locks
<TheL...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TheKraken <ReachUpandSuckYo...@yup.org>
The Last Mimsy <mi...@TheOtherSideoftheLookingGlass.org>
TheQuickBrownFox <thequick...@overthelazydog.org>
The Loner <TheL...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TralfamadoranJetPilot <BillyP...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TutAm...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org
<TutAm...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
UltimatePatriot <Ultimat...@thebestcountry.org>
UpGrade <UpG...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
ValleyGirl <LuvYe...@LikeIWouldGiveIt.Comeon>
VioletaPachydermata <PurpleE...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
WallyWallWhackr <wallywa...@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org>
100WattDarkSucker <100WattD...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Spehro Pefhany
I suppose if they have to keep themselves busy somehow, stealing
economic secrets would do it.
Archimedes' Lever
<dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Are you Phil Allison?
No, I just hate anti MS retards that spew horseshit based on their peer
clic's attitudes. That is about as immature as an adult can get.
Jan Panteltje
NeoPax <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in <7q4asc...@mid.individual.net>:
Yes NSA works for US corporate.
And UK follows US requests.. so if they really want the key...
The other thing with your method is that if you use the same key more then once,
then you are screwed too.
Think about iot.
Jan Panteltje
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<usppj51n3be1ejl0l...@4ax.com>:
>>Well, there exists no 'perfect' encryption,
>
>
>One-time pad is perfect... if you do it right.
>
>John
See my replies to Dirk, to 'do it right' is very very difficult, and
it still only can be used *once*, that is why it is called one time pad.
I know of one case where the xor was used and it was broken before it even came out.
LOL
Bart!
wrote:
>In article <omjpj5tl4ljm5d56d...@4ax.com>,
>lu...@yourangcousinitslibrary.org says...
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:22:28 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >BUT, the test bench has to run a lot of different apps, supporting a lot
>> >of old hardware, and a lot of it doesn't come with signed drivers and
>> >that would kill an install under 64 bit Vista or Win 7.
>>
>> Actually, Windows 7 allows for the installation of an app while telling
>> the OS to ignore the unsigned drivers.
>>
>> I am surprised that you did not know that fact.
>>
>> Then again, with all the "M$" hater type gang boy retard mentality
>> twits in here, I guess it shouldn't surprise me.
>>
>NOT the 64 bit version, ALL driver must be signed, UNLESS you toggle a
>little known boot time option.
>Then it will ask if you want to ignore, but the default is to NOT give
>that option. I think it must be enabled on a boot by boot basis too. I
>would rather just load the 32 bit, since the apps are all 32bit anyway,
>and there is only 4GB or RAM installed.
Hey! Sounds like you might have a bit on the ball. That is totally
different than the usual crop of retards that pass through.
>But, then again, you obviously know much more about what my computing
>requirements are than I do.
My post was about signed drivers, and included a comment about retarded
MS haters. I do not think that includes you, but hey, asswipe, if the
shoe fits...
>You must love USENET, it forces people to see your BS,
My remarks were not BS, you retarded POS. Otherwise your response
would not have been in the same vein. My remarks about the retarded MS
haters was, and still is, right on the mark.
> gives you
>interaction that is lacking in your real life,
Whatever, you retarded little piece of shit.
> at least until they add
>you to their killfile.
Only total retards filter their news. I guess that you are one such
retard.
>By bye
You're an idiot.
lurch
<pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well, there exists no 'perfect' encryption,
I see idiots making this retarded declaration ALL the time.
All you are doing is mimicking what some other total retard mouthed.
You do not actually know a goddamned thing about whether or not the claim
is factual.
I can tell you... it is not.
lurch
The idiots out there that think it is not possible are uneducated or
poorly educated or obsoletely educated idiots that do nothing but parrot
what some other retard, or their retarded professor parroted one day.
Both are wrong, and both are idiots, and both have obsolete educations.
Most, if not all of them, have no clue as to whether the claim is
actually valid.
lurch
<pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You are in the UK.
>in the UK the current law is that you have to hand over the key to officials
>if they want to see what your stuff is.
>Else you go to jail.
>An other example of 'democrazy'.
Not their military arm. That "law" does not apply.
Guess where it matters?
lurch
<pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There exists no secure encryption.
You are an idiot, and stop parroting the retarded net criminal's
mantra, because it is not true, asshole.
Bart!
>
>No, DimBulb is his idiot half-brother.
Leave to the never contributory retard to make yet another
non-contributory post.
I am glad I could help you become the total retard that you are K-Tard.
These groups have obviously had an affect on you. That, or you were that
way to begin with. How sad, you are.
John Larkin
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>On 12/30/2009 7:31 PM, lurch wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:34:45 -0500, Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/30/2009 5:16 PM, lurch wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:25:01 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
>>>> <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A free option is to install DOSBox which does work with my Metalink
>>>>> command-line assembler (about 20 years old). Have to 'mount'
>>>>> directories etc. so communication between the virtual machine and
>>>>> real not so easy. I don't see a way
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. Making the needed hooks to "mounted directories", etc. is
>>>> EASY. A simple startup script no different than config.sys or
>>>> autoexec.bat.
>>>>
>>>> DOSBox was ALWAYS quite easy to use, once you figure out that yes, you
>>>> MUST mount up any volumes which you wish to use while "in it".
>>>>
>>>> Stop making it harder than it really is. There is no reason that ANY
>>>> of your assembler apps would not run.
>>>
>>> DOSBox isn't that hard to use unless you like your directory structures
>>> the way they are. It's also slow as molasses and (iirc) has no
>>> full-screen support.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>>
>> You can re-construct any directory structure you have or use or want.
>
>But I don't want to reconstruct it, I just want to use it. DOSBox makes
>you keep copies of stuff, which is a horrible kluge.
>
>And did I mention it's as slow as molasses in January?
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbz
I just run my old DOS apps in a Windows command-line box, the
%SystemRoot%\system32\cmd.exe thing. Everything works fine, graphics
and all, as long as the programs don't try to do direct port i/o.
Why use DOSBox?
John
lurch
The software minded K-Tard idiot has no clue how the hardware world
works.
Here is a real simple on for you, K-Tard.
IP encryptors have been in use for years. Go find one, and then find
out their history, and the fact that they have NEVER been broken, and
that they are the most attacked piece of hardware in existence.
So your claim is shot all to hell, like we all knew it would be.
"cryptosystem" is not a word, K-Tard.
Phil Hobbs
I do the same. But some that I rely on, e.g. Freelance 4.0, only run in
full-screen mode, and full-screen went away with Vista. Is it back with
Windows 7?
And apparently that doesn't work with 64-bit Win 7.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
lurch
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>On 12/30/2009 10:53 PM, lurch wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:21:06 -0500, Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The point being that it shouldn't be necessary.
>>
>> Sure it is. It is an EMULATOR. That means that YOU have to tell it
>> ALL of its operating parameters. THEN, it does what you want. There is
>> NO emulator anywhere that magically knows what the user wants from it.
>>
>>> It would be nice if it
>>> were as easy to use as DOS, for instance.
>>
>> Making a setup file so that every launch gets you what you want is not
>> too much to ask for, ya dope. Particularly since the emulator does not
>> know what the user wants AT ALL.
>>
>> THEREFORE, it is up to the user to set up the MACHINE emulator the way
>> he wants the MACHINE to run.
>>
>> THAT is why they do not do it the way you want. They do it period. It
>> is up to the user to set it up for his own use. PERIOD.
>>
>> You goddamned point and click pussies make me laugh and cry at the same
>> time.
>
>'Lurch' is a pretty well-chosen nym. Congrats.
>
>Getting that worked up about other people's taste in computing--even if
>you knew what they actually were, which you don't--is not a particularly
>good sign. But have a happy New Year.
>
>
>Cheers
I'm sorry, but it is very easy to tell what his need is. The
conversation was about his remark about why he disliked it. My responses
were about how his remarks were totally untrue, and had nothing to do
with ANYONE's "needs".
So, his dismissal of the program based on his STUPID attitude toward
things computer related, tells me that HE has deeper issues than whether
or not he can actually run a piece of software... correctly.
That "he", being you means that I just told you that you have mental
issues that are what caused the "problems" you claim to have with that
applet. It again, has NOTHING to do with knowing what you need. It has
more to do with knowing how little you garner form the real world when
you examine something that resides in it.
Your assessments have major flaws that are related to YOU, not the
actual item under examination. It is a basic flaw in both scientific
method and character, but you go ahead and have a happy new year as well,
motherfucker.
I will refrain in the future from telling you about the err of your
ways, as your attitude clearly spills over into other areas of your
capacity to interact socially with others as well as its affect on your
capacity to make a valid assessment of ANYTHING in the scientific realm.
It is not about "taste", idiot. A dope like you calls it "taste", but
it is, in fact, your stubborn stupidity that has you hard wired into
thinking that you know what is going on, when in fact, all you do is make
stupid assumptions just about every step of the way in every encounter
you have.
The funny thing is that your years obsolete education allows you to put
a doctorate moniker on your "title".
If you are so goddamned smart, make an optical transistor, so the world
can move over to a computer that is five orders of magnitude faster than
what we currently do with electrons.
How is that for a "good sign"? Don't go refusing that your behavior is
not a similar "not a good sign" situation. It would have been far
simpler to realize and admit that it amounted to nothing more than you
giving up on something because YOU did not fully understand it, and
because YOU want the world to be a point and click happy fuzzy warm
world, when we all know that it is not that way.
Yeah, ya lazy slob, you have a happy new year too.
Jim Thompson
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>On 12/30/2009 10:53 PM, lurch wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:21:06 -0500, Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The point being that it shouldn't be necessary.
>>
>> Sure it is. It is an EMULATOR. That means that YOU have to tell it
>> ALL of its operating parameters. THEN, it does what you want. There is
>> NO emulator anywhere that magically knows what the user wants from it.
>>
>>> It would be nice if it
>>> were as easy to use as DOS, for instance.
>>
>> Making a setup file so that every launch gets you what you want is not
>> too much to ask for, ya dope. Particularly since the emulator does not
>> know what the user wants AT ALL.
>>
>> THEREFORE, it is up to the user to set up the MACHINE emulator the way
>> he wants the MACHINE to run.
>>
>> THAT is why they do not do it the way you want. They do it period. It
>> is up to the user to set it up for his own use. PERIOD.
>>
>> You goddamned point and click pussies make me laugh and cry at the same
>> time.
>
>'Lurch' is a pretty well-chosen nym. Congrats.
>
>Getting that worked up about other people's taste in computing--even if
>you knew what they actually were, which you don't--is not a particularly
>good sign. But have a happy New Year.
>
>
>Cheers
And best wishes for 'Lurch' to choke on his worms ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot
strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring
about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage
earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the
brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build
character and courage by taking away people's initiative and
independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for
them, what they could and should do for themselves."
-Abraham Lincoln
krw
Depends on what you XOR against. If it's a one-time pad, XOR is
perfectly secure. In fact, that's how a one-time pad is used.
krw
<B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig***!.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:09:57 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>
>>No, DimBulb is his idiot half-brother.
>
>
> Leave to the never contributory retard to make yet another
>non-contributory post.
Just trying to explain your behavior, DimBulb.
> I am glad I could help you become the total retard that you are K-Tard.
>These groups have obviously had an affect on you. That, or you were that
>way to begin with. How sad, you are.
AlwaysWrong is *always* so wrong. Poor baby. Time for mommy's hamper
again, DimBulb.
lurch
Do you run Windows 7?
This thread is about a VDM, regardless of type, in a Windows 7
environment, which it appears, you are not familiar with.
lurch
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
I cannot believe that you can be so stupid as to think that there is no
current replacement for what you do in Freelance.
Un-fucking-believable. And you sign as a doctorate holder. Is this
why scientific progress is so slow?
lurch
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:
>And best wishes for 'Lurch' to choke on his worms ;-)
Haven't you died of stupidity yet?
Paul Keinanen
The only sensible decision that MS has ever made was hiring David
Cutler to start to Windows NT family, which at least resembles a
proper multitasking OS :-)
krw
AlwaysWrong always likes to show how he can always be wrong.
> Here is a real simple on for you, K-Tard.
>
> IP encryptors have been in use for years. Go find one, and then find
>out their history, and the fact that they have NEVER been broken, and
>that they are the most attacked piece of hardware in existence.
THey don't need to be broken, AlwaysWrong. There are always easier
ways to get what's wanted. That's the point, DimBulb.
> So your claim is shot all to hell, like we all knew it would be.
>"cryptosystem" is not a word, K-Tard.
Man, you really *are* always wrong, AlwaysWrong. You good at one
thing, at least.
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:16:57 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
><OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:28:09 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>><dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Are you Phil Allison?
>>
>>
>> No, I just hate anti MS retards that spew horseshit based on their peer
>>clic's attitudes. That is about as immature as an adult can get.
>
>The only sensible decision that MS has ever made was hiring David
>Cutler to start to Windows NT family, which at least resembles a
>proper multitasking OS :-)
>
Which, silly man, is the basis for the kernels used in the current OS
family. Though now a full re-write, it is still the NT kernel paradigm
that is being utilized.
It has been ever since Windows 2000 as far as OSes not specifically
named "NT". They killed the name. They did not kill the concept.
Otherwise, there would be exactly ZERO dual CPU motherboards out there,
and multi-core would never have become a reality either. At least not by
this point in time.
Phil Hobbs
Be nice now, Lurch. Otherwise Gomez will get angry, and you know what
happens then. ;)
I use Freelance because I happen to like it. Isn't that okay with you?
How much Linux software have you actually written?
Have a happy New Year.
Paul Keinanen
Why would anyone believe that a crypto system has never been broken ?
The Enigma encryption system was developed in Germany in the 1930's
for commercial traffic encryption. The German Army/Luftwafe/Marine
used Enigma during WW2 and assumed it was completely safe and used it
as an idiot proof system, but in practice, it was broken by the
allies.
However, after the end of WW2, it was a state secret in Western
countries that the Enigma had been broken and hence Enigma devices
could be sold to various unsuspected countries after 1945 as a
completely secure system, while the allies were fully aware that they
were fully capable of deciphering the messages on a regular basis.
Paul Keinanen
<OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:50:42 +0200, Paul Keinanen <kein...@sci.fi>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:16:57 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
>><OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:28:09 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>>><dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Are you Phil Allison?
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I just hate anti MS retards that spew horseshit based on their peer
>>>clic's attitudes. That is about as immature as an adult can get.
>>
>>The only sensible decision that MS has ever made was hiring David
>>Cutler to start to Windows NT family, which at least resembles a
>>proper multitasking OS :-)
>>
>
> Which, silly man, is the basis for the kernels used in the current OS
>family. Though now a full re-write, it is still the NT kernel paradigm
>that is being utilized.
>
> It has been ever since Windows 2000 as far as OSes not specifically
>named "NT". They killed the name. They did not kill the concept.
Windows NT 3.51 was the best OS version that MS has ever produced.
>
> Otherwise, there would be exactly ZERO dual CPU motherboards out there,
>and multi-core would never have become a reality either. At least not by
>this point in time.
Windows NT is a scaled down version of VAX/VMS :-). In the 1970's the
VAX 11/782 was dual processor version and the family continued with
various dual processor machines (8200/8300) in the VAX range running
VMS.
John Larkin
<pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On a sunny day (Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:51:03 -0800) it happened John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
><usppj51n3be1ejl0l...@4ax.com>:
>
>>>Well, there exists no 'perfect' encryption,
>>
>>
>>One-time pad is perfect... if you do it right.
>>
>>John
>
>See my replies to Dirk, to 'do it right' is very very difficult,
No, you just need a pretty good random number generator. And you can
put a lot of random bytes on a pair of DVDs.
You can also xor the plaintext with any number of pads, and transport
that number of DVDs to the receiver through various paths. Every path
would have to be compromised to crack the text.
Party X can send pads to sender A and receiver B
Different party Y can send pads to sender A and receiver B
Different party Z can send pads to sender A and receiver B
X, Y, and Z all need to be disloyal for the code to be broken.
John
John Larkin
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:16:57 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
><OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:28:09 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>><dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Are you Phil Allison?
>>
>>
>> No, I just hate anti MS retards that spew horseshit based on their peer
>>clic's attitudes. That is about as immature as an adult can get.
>
>The only sensible decision that MS has ever made was hiring David
>Cutler to start to Windows NT family, which at least resembles a
>proper multitasking OS :-)
>
But they started breaking it right after he finished, by moving more
and more unreliable and insecure Microcrap into the kernel space.
John
John Larkin
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Vista? No, thanks.
XP is the best DOS that Microsoft has delivered.
John
John Larkin
Hell, no. I have work to get done.
> This thread is about a VDM, regardless of type, in a Windows 7
>environment, which it appears, you are not familiar with.
Hopefully won't be, either, for a few more years.
John
krw
wrote:
In practice, it wasn't so much that Enigma was broken than the *use*
of Enigma allowed it to be broken. The encryption itself was fairly
strong but the users did incredibly dumb things, like sending text in
both the clear and deciphered, sending a known messages, and other
really dumb things.
>However, after the end of WW2, it was a state secret in Western
>countries that the Enigma had been broken and hence Enigma devices
>could be sold to various unsuspected countries after 1945 as a
>completely secure system, while the allies were fully aware that they
>were fully capable of deciphering the messages on a regular basis.
Yep. It was classified for at least a couple of decades. Long after
anyone used it, its break had a lot of educational value. One such
lesson was that smart people assumed that their crypto could be
broken. Of course that lets AlwaysWrong out. He still believes in
such fairy tales.
lurch
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
So.
> Isn't that okay with you?
Not when you piss and moan about not being able to use something that
is decades old, and where several more modern, more advanced, more
capable, and more compatible are around.
> How much Linux software have you actually written?
Enough that I can't tell you about it.
krw
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:06:55 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
><OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:50:42 +0200, Paul Keinanen <kein...@sci.fi>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:16:57 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
>>><OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:28:09 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>>>><dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Are you Phil Allison?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, I just hate anti MS retards that spew horseshit based on their peer
>>>>clic's attitudes. That is about as immature as an adult can get.
>>>
>>>The only sensible decision that MS has ever made was hiring David
>>>Cutler to start to Windows NT family, which at least resembles a
>>>proper multitasking OS :-)
>>>
>>
>> Which, silly man, is the basis for the kernels used in the current OS
>>family. Though now a full re-write, it is still the NT kernel paradigm
>>that is being utilized.
>>
>> It has been ever since Windows 2000 as far as OSes not specifically
>>named "NT". They killed the name. They did not kill the concept.
>
>Windows NT 3.51 was the best OS version that MS has ever produced.
No way. 3x was buggier than hell. 2K wasn't too bad, though.
>> Otherwise, there would be exactly ZERO dual CPU motherboards out there,
>>and multi-core would never have become a reality either. At least not by
>>this point in time.
>
>Windows NT is a scaled down version of VAX/VMS :-). In the 1970's the
>VAX 11/782 was dual processor version and the family continued with
>various dual processor machines (8200/8300) in the VAX range running
>VMS.
Any similarities between NT and VMS are limited to its chief
architects. The OSs are nothing alike.
lurch
That is not what I said, idiot. I said that the ONE system which I
mentioned never has, and it never will either. Learn to read.
>
>The Enigma encryption system was developed in Germany in the 1930's
>for commercial traffic encryption. The German Army/Luftwafe/Marine
>used Enigma during WW2 and assumed it was completely safe and used it
>as an idiot proof system, but in practice, it was broken by the
>allies.
No, it was not. It was not, in fact, broken until they actually
obtained one of the encryptor devices. So, it was not broken, it was
deciphered by way of knowing what the entire code was, and the method of
encryption. after that, it was simple to do. Without the device, they
would never have done it during the war itself.
Just like I said, go find one of these IP encryptors I mentioned, and
you will not only not break it, but would likely go to prison for trying.
>However, after the end of WW2, it was a state secret in Western
>countries that the Enigma had been broken and hence Enigma devices
>could be sold to various unsuspected countries after 1945 as a
>completely secure system, while the allies were fully aware that they
>were fully capable of deciphering the messages on a regular basis.
Whoopie doo. In today's world, we know what has or has not been
broken. Yesterday's world, and gullible idiots that buy into it, are the
only ones that do not get what they paid for.
If you guys were not at least ten years behind the top minds in the
world, you would know that successful unbreakable encryption is already a
reality.
lurch
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:06:55 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
><OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>
>
>Windows NT is a scaled down version of VAX/VMS :-).
Wrong. It was an OS for the x86 processor family and had nothing to do
with VAX/VMS.
> In the 1970's the
>VAX 11/782 was dual processor version and the family continued with
>various dual processor machines (8200/8300) in the VAX range running
>VMS.
You are mixing my declaration about PCs and PC operating systems with
mini and mainframe realm. Totally unrelated. Update your reading skill
as well.. that is the second time you failed to read correctly and
mouthed off incorrectly about your incorrect comprehension of what you
read.
Phil Hobbs
In other words, "No".
>> How much Linux software have you actually written?
>
> Enough that I can't tell you about it.
In other words, "None."
Cheers
VWWall
Africa and Italy, in charge of a team intercepting German field
messages. Some of the better CW operators would even break into a net
and try to get someone to repeat something in plain text. It often worked!
>> However, after the end of WW2, it was a state secret in Western
>> countries that the Enigma had been broken and hence Enigma devices
>> could be sold to various unsuspected countries after 1945 as a
>> completely secure system, while the allies were fully aware that they
>> were fully capable of deciphering the messages on a regular basis.
>
The guys in London had an "emulator" that reproduced the rotor positions
of the machine. Turing was one of those working on the Enigma problem,
and was one of the first to use computers to break the code. The site is
now a museum open to the public.
> Yep. It was classified for at least a couple of decades. Long after
> anyone used it, its break had a lot of educational value. One such
> lesson was that smart people assumed that their crypto could be
> broken. Of course that lets AlwaysWrong out. He still believes in
> such fairy tales.
Anybody that had been even remotely involved with "Military Crypto" knew
that similar systems had been broken. When I went to MilInt school at
Vint Hill Farms, there was a big sign in the main classroom that said:
"What the mind of man can conceal, the mind of man can reveal."
The RAF bombed Germany with their own weather reports we picked up at
Vint Hill, decrypted, re-crypted and sent back to the UK. The code was
all numbers...it got tiresome sitting with your fingers on the number
keys only. A number pad would have really helped!
--
Virg Wall
lurch
It gets even tougher when real time elements like timestamps are
included in the key system.
lurch
Bill should never have broken his agreement with IBM during the OS/2
realm. What we use now would be different if he had remained partnered
with them.
John Larkin
<lu...@yourangcousinitslibrary.org> wrote:
>
>> How much Linux software have you actually written?
>
> Enough that I can't tell you about it.
One solution to that equation is "none."
John
Spehro Pefhany
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
We've got code in products that are being shipped now, and probably
will be for another 5-10 years, that were created with tools that
cannot be run under Win7/64. I guess we have to archive O/S as well as
the tools ... and verify that they'll produce exactly the same code
under emulation before the XP machines can be retired (no real rush,
but sometime in the next few years).
I don't imagine it will be much longer before they deliberately
prevent XP from being installed on new machines by dropping some
element of backward compatibility. Typical consumers won't notice or
care.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
lurch
Wrong.
Actual DOS releases were far better than any VDM any windows OS ever
offered. Best bet is to use that OS in a realm that allows its use.
lurch
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> Do you run Windows 7?
>
>Hell, no. I have work to get done.
You're a fucking retard to say that.
Especially since you waste part of your time here.
What a retarded asswipe remark that was.
Typical coming from a jerk that has not familiarized himself with ANY
new OS in years.
It makes everything you say carry about as much credence as an Arafat
remark.
We knew that he was a clueless bastard too.
Archimedes' Lever
>In practice, it wasn't so much that Enigma was broken than the *use*
>of Enigma allowed it to be broken.
Nope. That isn't true either. It was the capture of an actual machine
that turned the corner on the effort.
lurch
You're an idiot. If the answer was none, I would have said none,
dipshit.
>Cheers
You should really consider removing this retarded and disingenuous crap
from ALL of your posts.
lurch
>"What the mind of man can conceal, the mind of man can reveal."
Except that they should now remove it, as it is no longer true.
lurch
Yeah, but in your case, it is no different than your also incorrect
interpretation of what "vapor phase" means.
lurch
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>that were created with tools that
>cannot be run under Win7/64.
Then run the 32 bit version, ya dippy ditz!
Some tool, that its authors are so lame that they cannot even keep up
with the rest of the world.
lurch
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>I don't imagine it will be much longer before they deliberately
>prevent XP from being installed on new machines by dropping some
>element of backward compatibility. Typical consumers won't notice or
>care.
It is such a shame that stupid fear does not kill those that have it.
The far less populated world we live in would be far better than the
cry baby horseshit we are inundated with in the current world.
John Larkin
Why should I labor on Microsoft's treadmill? The function of an OS is
to support applications, not be some sort of superstar on its own. And
I don't espacially like the looks of a Mac, which is what Microsoft is
trying to be. Steve Jobs is Microsoft's best designer.
I'll upgrade to Win7 or Win9 or whatever when I have applications that
need it. Right now, it's more likely that Win 7 will break stuff that
works for me now, and it would take weeks of annoyance to try to
install all my apps just to find out which ones will work. Why would I
want to do that?
John
Phil Hobbs
Roy,
Happy New Year. You're fun to argue with sometimes, but eventually you
always run out of things to say and fall back on empty and tedious
abuse, which never actually hurts anyone here because nobody takes you
very seriously. How about spending five minutes a day trying to see
things from somebody else's point of view?
Phil Hobbs
> "Phil Hobbs"<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
> news:4B3C0A92...@electrooptical.net...
>> Wow! So I can use my multi-GHz multicore CPU with gigabytes of memory and
>> it'll be as fast as an 80286! Cool!
>
> Are you running with the default CPU cycles? IIRC, it defaults to around
> 3000, which is roughly 8086 speed on my box. Watch it on Task Manager while
> cranking it up to, say, 10-20k. When it reaches ~80% CPU usage you're using
> pretty much everything. Then it should run nice and toasty (more like a
> Pentium).
>
> Protected mode programs all run at full power (~100% CPU), which is probably
> Pentium range.
>
> Mounting is easy, just run it with the current directory as an argument.
> Set up a shortcut and configure it to do everything you need to start with
> in one click.
>
> I don't know what you're whining about directories for, it's your own fault
> if you screwed up your directories. They have the same damn path in
> Windows.
>
> Tim
>
Happy New Year, Tim. There's no reason for me to use dosbox in Windows,
since XP runs all my DOS apps fine--though the available RAM is a lot
less than in OS/2.
I've used it on my Opteron/Linux cluster a fair amount, because dosemu
didn't work on that hardware, and it's dog slow even on a fast machine.
I know about how to change the speed and all that--it goes from 1% of
the speed of dosemu to probably 10%, and brings the machine to its knees
in the process.
Pathetic.