PDA

View Full Version : an oldie but a goodie?



Terry Yager
February 21st, 2004, 05:44 PM
This was originally published in 1989. This qualifies as vintage, doesn't it?

http://www.erben.com/Pages/Fun/ComputerDefinitions.html

--T

CP/M User
February 21st, 2004, 06:36 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote:

> This was originally published in 1989.
> This qualifies as vintage, doesn't it?

From the Website (which I didn't find
funny at all!):

"CP/M:
An antiquated operating system from the
early days of computing, based on
inscrutable prompts like A>, terse
commands, and absurdly backward
conventions such as 11- character limits
on file names. Contrasted with today's
modern versions of DOS."

"Antiquated operating systems from the
early days of computing?"

If I had a PDP based machine (or
something earlier), then according to
them, CP/M was around when a
Harvard Mark I was brand spanking new
or even perhaps a EDSAC. This is what
the early days of electronic computing
was all about. Of course it doesn't
mention "electronic", so they could be
including the abacus! :-)

I can't believe that back in 1989 they
were treating an OS (arguibly) like
CP/M as something as Ol' as a first
generation computer! Because if you
look at it, CP/M came with Computers
like the Amstrad CPC6128 & PCW just
a couple of years. For a Amstrad CPC
6128 it was 4 years & for a PCW it
could well very (I seem to recall this
machine came out in 1985 or 6 &
even later for the later machines).
The PCW was more CP/M based than
the CPC6128! ;-)

And here we have a bunch of jokers
from 1989 saying it's a Antiquated
Operating System from the early days
of Computing.

Darn right this is a joke Terry, a very
sick joke, they should be forced to take
down that website!

It would be so funny to see how the same
people critise machines they would bless
from back then. IBM users do this, they
would ask what dur 86!

Hmmmm,
CP/M User.

Terry Yager
February 21st, 2004, 06:55 PM
CP/M User,

Sorry, no offense intended...<flagelating self with cat-o-9-tails> mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

--T

CP/M User
February 21st, 2004, 06:56 PM
Funny, this site wants to talk about Firmware:

" Firmware:
Software with permanent bugs hardwired into it."

Another feature of the Amstrad & again, has
nothing wrong with it!

CP/M User.

CP/M User
February 21st, 2004, 06:59 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote:

> Sorry, no offense intended...<flagelating
> self with cat-o-9-tails> mea culpa, mea
> culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Sorry, I'm not blaming you Terry. But since
you felt it was a joke of a site, then yes,
it's worth posting here, it's a joke in the
sense that it's not (if you know what I
mean! ;-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

Terry Yager
February 21st, 2004, 07:02 PM
Funny, this site wants to talk about Firmware:

" Firmware:
Software with permanent bugs hardwired into it."

Another feature of the Amstrad & again, has
nothing wrong with it!

CP/M User.

Yeah, the key word being *feature*, as in the expression: "It's a feature, not a bug".
My Z88 has at least one known bug in the firmware, not a big deal tho.

--T

CP/M User
February 21st, 2004, 07:12 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote:

>> Funny, this site wants to talk about Firmware:

>> " Firmware:
>> Software with permanent bugs hardwired
>> into it."

>> Another feature of the Amstrad & again, has
>> nothing wrong with it!

> Yeah, the key word being *feature*, as in the
> expression: "It's a feature, not a bug".

Well it's been added to make life slightly easier
for the Assembly programmer.

Of course for someone with a lot of Assembly
knowledge, it's actually better to write their
own routines (because there're usually faster).

But for programmers like myself, it's handy
because it brings more routines towards what
you want to write.

> My Z88 has at least one known bug in the
> firmware, not a big deal tho.

Well I dunno using the firmware, which can
lead to corrupting Registers is a bug or not,
but depending on what's been used certain
registers are corrupt (which is normally why
you PUSH & POP them around that code).

Cheers,
CP/M User.

Terry Yager
February 22nd, 2004, 10:48 AM
I did like the definition for "parity", tho. An extra bit that one time out of nine will crash your program when it detects an error in itself...

--T

~llama
February 23rd, 2004, 04:52 PM
XT:
All the computer that most users who just type letters or run typical spreadsheets will ever need, even though a 386 machine will reformat their text a whole tenth of a second faster.

hmm... that made me laugh :mrgreen: