Windows 11 is now available

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 22:30:50 -0500

On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 22:59:09 -0400, Retrograde

I remember
Win98 running just fine(1) in 128MB.

IIRC, I was using 4MB on Win 3.1, and that was upgraded memory. 640kb
in DOS days... Memory was very expensive in those days. First hard
drive was 32megs at some $250.00

Kids today! WIWAL we 'ad 1M RAM between 20 users! & storage was punch
cards.

Also, you probably have to buy a new machine to install it,

AV1 video requires (best way to do it) hardware video decode...newest
computers can do this, if the right ones are bought.
AV1 decreases bandwidth requirements, so the "video industry" would
like to move over to this format. Also, no royalities on it.
Display requirements for HDR video in Windows
Windows 11 Windows 10
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/display-requirements-for-hdr-video-in-windows-192f362e-1245-e14d-3d3f-4b3fc606b80f>
Is HDR better than 4K?
HDR delivers a higher contrast--or larger color and brightness
range--than Standard Dynamic Range (SDR), and is more visually
impactful than 4K. That said, 4K delivers a sharper, more defined
image. Both standards are increasingly common among premium digital
televisions, and both deliver stellar image quality.
https://www.lifewire.com/difference-between-hdr-and-4k-4176961

xposted to afc

[Quadibloc]

Kids today! WIWAL we 'ad 1M RAM between 20 users! & storage was punch
cards.

I remember that they could connect five users - each with their own
interactive terminal (an ASR 33 Teletype) to a PDP-8 with 12K of RAM
(in today's units; 8K words, each 12 bits long) and a head-per-track
disk with a capacity of 32K words.

So time-sharing is possible with even less memory per user.

John Savard

[Branimir Maksimovic]

Post by Quadibloc

Kids today! WIWAL we 'ad 1M RAM between 20 users! & storage was punch
cards.

I remember that they could connect five users - each with their own
interactive terminal (an ASR 33 Teletype) to a PDP-8 with 12K of RAM
(in today's units; 8K words, each 12 bits long) and a head-per-track
disk with a capacity of 32K words.
So time-sharing is possible with even less memory per user.
John Savard

Well on unisys you could connect more then 100 terminals
on machine with only 4mb of ram,
because terminals had logic for input, and all that
was exchanged was just packets sent :P

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 04:53:56 GMT

Post by Branimir Maksimovic

Post by Quadibloc

Kids today! WIWAL we 'ad 1M RAM between 20 users! & storage was
punch cards.

I remember that they could connect five users - each with their own
interactive terminal (an ASR 33 Teletype) to a PDP-8 with 12K of RAM
(in today's units; 8K words, each 12 bits long) and a head-per-track
disk with a capacity of 32K words.
So time-sharing is possible with even less memory per user.
John Savard

Well on unisys you could connect more then 100 terminals
on machine with only 4mb of ram,
because terminals had logic for input, and all that
was exchanged was just packets sent :P

I was starting high and was hoping to progress via mechanical
calculators/sliderules to end with "my grandad just counted pebbles".

VI*VII=XLII

[Andy Walker]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
I was starting high and was hoping to progress via mechanical
calculators/sliderules to end with "my grandad just counted pebbles".
VI*VII=XLII

Not quite sure what that last line was intended to convey,
but if it was that Roman numerals are not sensible in use for
arithmetic, then, within reason, I beg to differ. Within the
domain of small[-ish] integers, they are, if anything, rather
better than Arabic numerals [else you can be sure that Romans,
always very practical, wouldn't have used them]. They have a
smaller and more regular multiplication table, simpler rules
[eg in respect of "carries" and "borrows"], and addition and
subtraction are largely mere concatenation together with some
obvious re-write rules. It's a different matter when you're
doing physics or even engineering to many decimal places or
with numbers much over MMM, but neither the Romans nor the
man on the Clapham Omnibus were much into such things.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 19:40:09 +0100

Post by Andy Walker

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
I was starting high and was hoping to progress via mechanical
calculators/sliderules to end with "my grandad just counted
pebbles". VI*VII=XLII

Not quite sure what that last line was intended to convey,
but if it was that Roman numerals are not sensible in use for
arithmetic, then, within reason, I beg to differ. Within the

OK, I shudda given an example with div. (DIV =500+5-1!)

Post by Andy Walker
domain of small[-ish] integers, they are, if anything, rather
better than Arabic numerals [else you can be sure that Romans,
always very practical, wouldn't have used them]. They have a
smaller and more regular multiplication table, simpler rules
[eg in respect of "carries" and "borrows"], and addition and
subtraction are largely mere concatenation together with some
obvious re-write rules. It's a different matter when you're
doing physics or even engineering to many decimal places or
with numbers much over MMM, but neither the Romans nor the
man on the Clapham Omnibus were much into such things.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:13:15 +0100

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
VI*VII=XLII

V1*1X wasn't it (base X111 of course).

[Branimir Maksimovic]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:13:15 +0100

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
VI*VII=XLII

V1*1X wasn't it (base X111 of course).

Oh, forgot that calculus :P

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 20:30:36 +0100

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:13:15 +0100

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
VI*VII=XLII

V1*1X wasn't it (base X111 of course).

Ah, well unforgot!

[Branimir Maksimovic]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
I was starting high and was hoping to progress via mechanical
calculators/sliderules to end with "my grandad just counted pebbles".
VI*VII=XLII

I had calculator that could compute definite integrals
by programming it blindly :P

[Bob Eager]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
I was starting high and was hoping to progress via mechanical
calculators/sliderules to end with "my grandad just counted pebbles".
VI*VII=XLII

Ah, but what's XLII - XLII?

[Andy Walker]

Post by Bob Eager
Ah, but what's XLII - XLII?

That's a very modern [and quite sophisticated] question.

Bob [to an ancient Roman who happens to speak English]: "What is
xlii - ...."
Roman [interrupts]: "Que?"
Bob: "Ah, sorry, you don't have symbols yet. Let's try it in
words. You have xlii."
Roman: "xlii /what/?"
Bob: "It doesn't matter, it's just a number."
Roman: "Of course it matters! If you have xlii slaves, you're
wealthy, if xlii grains of corn, rather less so."
Bob: "OK, you have xlii sheep. A thief takes away xlii of them.
How many sheep do you have now?"
Roman: "Is this a trick question, like the man going to St Ives?
You don't now have any sheep, so the question has no answer."
Bob: "You don't know what the number of sheep is?"
Roman: "If you don't have any, then there is no such number. It's
nearly as daft as asking how many I have if the thief takes away
ccx of my xlii sheep. If you ask me what I own, then do you
expect me to list the things I have or the things I don't have?
I don't have any sheep, thanks to your thief, but I also don't
have any elephants, or any palaces or any bottles of whisky or
any Olympic medals or any lots of other things. Do you also want
me to tell you how much the elephants I don't have are worth? We
could be here for a very long time unless you ask more sensible
questions."

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by Andy Walker
Bob: "OK, you have xlii sheep. A thief takes away xlii of them.
How many sheep do you have now?"
Roman: "Is this a trick question, like the man going to St Ives?
You don't now have any sheep, so the question has no answer."

Ah, grasshopper, the true master can distinguish between:
zero
blank
null string
unspecified
undefined

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 17:34:51 GMT

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by Andy Walker
Bob: "OK, you have xlii sheep. A thief takes away xlii of them.
How many sheep do you have now?"
Roman: "Is this a trick question, like the man going to St Ives?
You don't now have any sheep, so the question has no answer."

zero
blank

0C7!

Post by Charlie Gibbs
null string
unspecified
undefined
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin

[J. Clarke]

Post by Bob Eager

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
I was starting high and was hoping to progress via mechanical
calculators/sliderules to end with "my grandad just counted pebbles".
VI*VII=XLII

Ah, but what's XLII - XLII?

A rout?

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Post by Branimir Maksimovic
Well on unisys you could connect more then 100 terminals
on machine with only 4mb of ram,
because terminals had logic for input, and all that
was exchanged was just packets sent :P

Original CP67 was installed at univ. in Jan1968 by three people from
cambridge science center ... could play with it on weekends on 360/67 with
768kbytes memory. The TSS/360 IBM SE and I put together synthetic
fortran, compile, and execute benchmark ... and CP67/CMS with 35
emulated users had better response time and throughput than TSS/360
(on same machine) with only four users.

Later after rewritting a lot of CP67 (pathlengths, resource management,
scheduling, "global LRU" page replacement, page I/O, ordered seek
queuing, etc), graduating and joining the cambridge science center
... had 85 real users on 768kbyte (192 4k pages) 360/67 (104 4k pageable
pages after fixed kernel and control block storage) had subsecond
response and 100% CPU useage.

This was important because the Grenoble Science Center had modified CP67
to have a "working set dispatcher" ("local LRU" page replacement, from
1968 academic papers) running on 1mbyte (256 4k pages) with 35 (real)
users had worse response and lower CPU useage (aka "global LRU" page
replacement easily beat "local LRU" page replacement).

This came up more than decade later, Jim Gray and left IBM San Jose
Research for Tandem and at SIGOPS (Asilomar, 14-16Dec81), he asked me if
I could help co-worker at Tandem get his Stanford PHD (advisor was later
president of Stanford) which involved "global LRU" (page replacement),
and he knew I had down a lot of work on global LRU page replacement
algorithm and had apple-to-apple comparison between local and global LRU
(as undergraduate in the 60s). Some of the "local LRU" forces (dating
back to 60s when I was doing "global LRU") were heavily lobbying
Stanford to block awarding PHD involving global LRU.

When I went to send information ... SJR management said that I wasn't
allowed to (even tho none of the information involved anything after
joining IBM). I've commented that I hoped that it was done as punishment
for online computer conferencing ("Tandem Memos", in the late 70s I was
blamed for online computer conferencing on the internal network,
folklore is when corporate executive committee was told about it, 5of6
wanted to fire me) ... rather than they taking part in the global/local
LRU academic dispute. I wasn't allowed to send reply for nearly a year
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email821019

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
This was important because the Grenoble Science Center had modified CP67
to have a "working set dispatcher" ("local LRU" page replacement, from
1968 academic papers) running on 1mbyte (256 4k pages) with 35 (real)
users had worse response and lower CPU useage (aka "global LRU" page
replacement easily beat "local LRU" page replacement).

aka the 768kbyte IBM cambridge science center CP/67 360/67 with 104
pageable pages (after fixed memory requirements) had better response and
aggregate throughput with 85 users (and "global LRU") than the 1mbyte
IBM grenoble science center CP/67 360/67 with 156 pageable pages (after
fixed memory requirements, i.e. 50% more pageable pages for users than
cambridge machine) with 35 users and "local LRU" page replacement and
"working set dispatcher" ... as described in academic literature.

so it was effectively same hardware and nearly same system ... except
for the "global LRU" page replacement vis-a-vis "local LRU" page
replacement ... which supported the work done for Stanford Phd work more
than decade later on "global LRU'.

[Branimir Maksimovic]

Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler

Post by Branimir Maksimovic
Well on unisys you could connect more then 100 terminals
on machine with only 4mb of ram,
because terminals had logic for input, and all that
was exchanged was just packets sent :P

Original CP67 was installed at univ. in Jan1968 by three people from
cambridge science center ... could play with it on weekends on 360/67 with
768kbytes memory. The TSS/360 IBM SE and I put together synthetic
fortran, compile, and execute benchmark ... and CP67/CMS with 35
emulated users had better response time and throughput than TSS/360
(on same machine) with only four users.
Later after rewritting a lot of CP67 (pathlengths, resource management,
scheduling, "global LRU" page replacement, page I/O, ordered seek
queuing, etc), graduating and joining the cambridge science center
... had 85 real users on 768kbyte (192 4k pages) 360/67 (104 4k pageable
pages after fixed kernel and control block storage) had subsecond
response and 100% CPU useage.
This was important because the Grenoble Science Center had modified CP67
to have a "working set dispatcher" ("local LRU" page replacement, from
1968 academic papers) running on 1mbyte (256 4k pages) with 35 (real)
users had worse response and lower CPU useage (aka "global LRU" page
replacement easily beat "local LRU" page replacement).
This came up more than decade later, Jim Gray and left IBM San Jose
Research for Tandem and at SIGOPS (Asilomar, 14-16Dec81), he asked me if
I could help co-worker at Tandem get his Stanford PHD (advisor was later
president of Stanford) which involved "global LRU" (page replacement),
and he knew I had down a lot of work on global LRU page replacement
algorithm and had apple-to-apple comparison between local and global LRU
(as undergraduate in the 60s). Some of the "local LRU" forces (dating
back to 60s when I was doing "global LRU") were heavily lobbying
Stanford to block awarding PHD involving global LRU.
When I went to send information ... SJR management said that I wasn't
allowed to (even tho none of the information involved anything after
joining IBM). I've commented that I hoped that it was done as punishment
for online computer conferencing ("Tandem Memos", in the late 70s I was
blamed for online computer conferencing on the internal network,
folklore is when corporate executive committee was told about it, 5of6
wanted to fire me) ... rather than they taking part in the global/local
LRU academic dispute. I wasn't allowed to send reply for nearly a year
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email821019

I was too young, then. I reached first IBM when I got to practice
school programs and later in university :P