🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2018-03-19, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-03-19 13:04, J. Clarke wrote:
>> 
>> In 1980 personal computer sales were around a million units a year. In
>> 1990 they were around 20 million units a year and most of it IBM and
>> clones.
>> 
>> The _boom_ happened in the '80s.
>
> Maybe on some countries started mid 70s? On mine it was rather mid 80s.
> Not with IBMs, but clones, at half price or less.
>
> Me, I count the PC as starting with the IBM. Nothing earlier was used
> significantly.
>

The Amiga, i have always been available for  Local groups, no matter
how  crazy, to do a bit of Dtp. The Amiga could do it.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:56:46 -0400
Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:

> Yes, 1977. That was when the Commodore PET, the Apple ][ and the Tandy
> TRS-80 were offered. The first computers which also had a keyboard and
> monitor (well for the Apple ][ the customer needed to buy a
> monitor). Thus people not being nerds could actually use them. That
> kicked off the home computer revolution in my opinion.

	Agreed, prior to those three home computing was about building a
computer, afterwards it was about using one, not just home use either but
also small business use started with these three (I wrote a cattle feed
program on the TRS-80 for one farmer).

> I say it was triggered in the late 70s but really kicked off in the
> 80s.

	The next important thing after the PET/Apple/TRS-80 appearing was
CP/M bringing with it industry standard applications (WordStar in
particular).

	While the PC set the next and future standards, it wasn't IMHO all
that important except that it switched us from a loose industry standard to
a tight hardware spec for a while.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:34:53 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:56:46 -0400
> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, 1977. That was when the Commodore PET, the Apple ][ and the Tandy
>> TRS-80 were offered. The first computers which also had a keyboard and
>> monitor (well for the Apple ][ the customer needed to buy a
>> monitor). Thus people not being nerds could actually use them. That
>> kicked off the home computer revolution in my opinion.
>
> 	Agreed, prior to those three home computing was about building a
> computer, afterwards it was about using one, not just home use either but
> also small business use started with these three (I wrote a cattle feed
> program on the TRS-80 for one farmer).

And there was the MITS Altair. It just had panel switches like some PDP
computers.

You could add cards though and then had video output and keyboard
input. But that was not default.

If I understand this correctly the BASIC Allen and Gates wrote was
also an operating system.

>> I say it was triggered in the late 70s but really kicked off in the
>> 80s.
>
> 	The next important thing after the PET/Apple/TRS-80 appearing was
> CP/M bringing with it industry standard applications (WordStar in
> particular).

A shame CP/M was killed of by MS-DOS. Would had been interesting to see
what happened to it if not. Especially when the GUIs came out in the mid
80. I know GEM ran on it, but (other than used in an ATARI ST and for
UNIX/Linux) it never really took off or was developed further.
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:34:53 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:56:46 -0400
>> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, 1977. That was when the Commodore PET, the Apple ][ and the Tandy
>>> TRS-80 were offered. The first computers which also had a keyboard and
>>> monitor (well for the Apple ][ the customer needed to buy a
>>> monitor). Thus people not being nerds could actually use them. That
>>> kicked off the home computer revolution in my opinion.
>> 
>> Agreed, prior to those three home computing was about building a
>> computer, afterwards it was about using one, not just home use either but
>> also small business use started with these three (I wrote a cattle feed
>> program on the TRS-80 for one farmer).
> 
> And there was the MITS Altair. It just had panel switches like some PDP
> computers.
> 
> You could add cards though and then had video output and keyboard
> input. But that was not default.
> 
> If I understand this correctly the BASIC Allen and Gates wrote was
> also an operating system.
> 
>>> I say it was triggered in the late 70s but really kicked off in the
>>> 80s.
>> 
>> The next important thing after the PET/Apple/TRS-80 appearing was
>> CP/M bringing with it industry standard applications (WordStar in
>> particular).
> 
> A shame CP/M was killed of by MS-DOS. Would had been interesting to see
> what happened to it if not. Especially when the GUIs came out in the mid
> 80. I know GEM ran on it, but (other than used in an ATARI ST and for
> UNIX/Linux) it never really took off or was developed further.

GEM ran on PC/MS DOS, too. At the time I thought it was a better bet than
windows, probably because of smaller resource requirements. (my "distaste"
for microsoft came later).

-- 
Pete

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:11:20 -0400
Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:34:53 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> >
> > 	The next important thing after the PET/Apple/TRS-80 appearing
> > was CP/M bringing with it industry standard applications (WordStar in
> > particular).
> 
> A shame CP/M was killed of by MS-DOS. Would had been interesting to see

	Indeed it was, although MP/M kept it going in some places until
the 80286 and XENIX became a better multi-user option.

> what happened to it if not. Especially when the GUIs came out in the mid
> 80. I know GEM ran on it, but (other than used in an ATARI ST and for
> UNIX/Linux) it never really took off or was developed further.

	There was a lot going on in the multi-user/tasking area with CP/M
and MP/M in the latter days - things like the Micromation machine with a
Z80 and 64K behind each terminal connector running CP/M and another one
running MP/M managing the whole lot, or the Televideo star networks of CP/M
and MP/M machines.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On 20/03/2018 20:42, Peter Flass wrote:
> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:34:53 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:56:46 -0400
>>> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, 1977. That was when the Commodore PET, the Apple ][ and the Tandy
>>>> TRS-80 were offered. The first computers which also had a keyboard and
>>>> monitor (well for the Apple ][ the customer needed to buy a
>>>> monitor). Thus people not being nerds could actually use them. That
>>>> kicked off the home computer revolution in my opinion.
>>>
>>> Agreed, prior to those three home computing was about building a
>>> computer, afterwards it was about using one, not just home use either but
>>> also small business use started with these three (I wrote a cattle feed
>>> program on the TRS-80 for one farmer).
>>
>> And there was the MITS Altair. It just had panel switches like some PDP
>> computers.
>>
>> You could add cards though and then had video output and keyboard
>> input. But that was not default.
>>
>> If I understand this correctly the BASIC Allen and Gates wrote was
>> also an operating system.
>>
>>>> I say it was triggered in the late 70s but really kicked off in the
>>>> 80s.
>>>
>>> The next important thing after the PET/Apple/TRS-80 appearing was
>>> CP/M bringing with it industry standard applications (WordStar in
>>> particular).
>>
>> A shame CP/M was killed of by MS-DOS. Would had been interesting to see
>> what happened to it if not. Especially when the GUIs came out in the mid
>> 80. I know GEM ran on it, but (other than used in an ATARI ST and for
>> UNIX/Linux) it never really took off or was developed further.
> 
> GEM ran on PC/MS DOS, too. At the time I thought it was a better bet than
> windows, probably because of smaller resource requirements. (my "distaste"
> for microsoft came later).
> 

1987 I had the Amstrad PC1512 (2 off 5" floppies" ) which came with the 
choice of PCDOS or GEM operating systems


Also, when others were itemising OSs, I used OS32 on Perkin Elmer 8/32s

On 2018-03-20 21:03, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:05:48 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>> I forgot about the "Amstrad PCW", a dedicated PC/M based word processor
>> machine. Came complete: Display with complete cpu and floppy drive (two)
>> in the same box, detached keyboard and a printer.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstrad_PCW
> 
> Their advertisement said you don't need to know anything about
> computers. Thus many computerphobes were able to to word processing.

Yep.

> The last to be introduced seems to be the "PcW16" in 1995. That was
> probably the last mainstream computer powered by a Zilog Z80.

Wow, that late?

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:11:20 -0400
> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:34:53 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> 
>>> The next important thing after the PET/Apple/TRS-80 appearing
>>> was CP/M bringing with it industry standard applications (WordStar in
>>> particular).
>> 
>> A shame CP/M was killed of by MS-DOS. Would had been interesting to see
> 
> 	Indeed it was, although MP/M kept it going in some places until
> the 80286 and XENIX became a better multi-user option.
> 
>> what happened to it if not. Especially when the GUIs came out in the mid
>> 80. I know GEM ran on it, but (other than used in an ATARI ST and for
>> UNIX/Linux) it never really took off or was developed further.
> 
> 	There was a lot going on in the multi-user/tasking area with CP/M
> and MP/M in the latter days - things like the Micromation machine with a
> Z80 and 64K behind each terminal connector running CP/M and another one
> running MP/M managing the whole lot, or the Televideo star networks of CP/M
> and MP/M machines.
> 

Okay, I was going to ask what CP/M had that DOS didn't (except nostalgia),
since the latter was derived from the former. Once you include MP/M I can
see a difference. On the other hand it's a shame the unix wasn't able to
get into this space earlier - resource and legal requirements? It took
Linus to turn unix into a true, and widely-used,  personal operating
system.

-- 
Pete

Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 20/03/2018 20:42, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:34:53 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:56:46 -0400
>>>> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, 1977. That was when the Commodore PET, the Apple ][ and the Tandy
>>>>> TRS-80 were offered. The first computers which also had a keyboard and
>>>>> monitor (well for the Apple ][ the customer needed to buy a
>>>>> monitor). Thus people not being nerds could actually use them. That
>>>>> kicked off the home computer revolution in my opinion.
>>>> 
>>>> Agreed, prior to those three home computing was about building a
>>>> computer, afterwards it was about using one, not just home use either but
>>>> also small business use started with these three (I wrote a cattle feed
>>>> program on the TRS-80 for one farmer).
>>> 
>>> And there was the MITS Altair. It just had panel switches like some PDP
>>> computers.
>>> 
>>> You could add cards though and then had video output and keyboard
>>> input. But that was not default.
>>> 
>>> If I understand this correctly the BASIC Allen and Gates wrote was
>>> also an operating system.
>>> 
>>>>> I say it was triggered in the late 70s but really kicked off in the
>>>>> 80s.
>>>> 
>>>> The next important thing after the PET/Apple/TRS-80 appearing was
>>>> CP/M bringing with it industry standard applications (WordStar in
>>>> particular).
>>> 
>>> A shame CP/M was killed of by MS-DOS. Would had been interesting to see
>>> what happened to it if not. Especially when the GUIs came out in the mid
>>> 80. I know GEM ran on it, but (other than used in an ATARI ST and for
>>> UNIX/Linux) it never really took off or was developed further.
>> 
>> GEM ran on PC/MS DOS, too. At the time I thought it was a better bet than
>> windows, probably because of smaller resource requirements. (my "distaste"
>> for microsoft came later).
>> 
> 
> 1987 I had the Amstrad PC1512 (2 off 5" floppies" ) which came with the 
> choice of PCDOS or GEM operating systems

I don't think GEM was an OS. It was move of a graphical shell.

-- 
Pete

On 20/03/2018 22:21, Peter Flass wrote:
> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 20/03/2018 20:42, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:34:53 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:56:46 -0400
>>>>> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, 1977. That was when the Commodore PET, the Apple ][ and the Tandy
>>>>>> TRS-80 were offered. The first computers which also had a keyboard and
>>>>>> monitor (well for the Apple ][ the customer needed to buy a
>>>>>> monitor). Thus people not being nerds could actually use them. That
>>>>>> kicked off the home computer revolution in my opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, prior to those three home computing was about building a
>>>>> computer, afterwards it was about using one, not just home use either but
>>>>> also small business use started with these three (I wrote a cattle feed
>>>>> program on the TRS-80 for one farmer).
>>>>
>>>> And there was the MITS Altair. It just had panel switches like some PDP
>>>> computers.
>>>>
>>>> You could add cards though and then had video output and keyboard
>>>> input. But that was not default.
>>>>
>>>> If I understand this correctly the BASIC Allen and Gates wrote was
>>>> also an operating system.
>>>>
>>>>>> I say it was triggered in the late 70s but really kicked off in the
>>>>>> 80s.
>>>>>
>>>>> The next important thing after the PET/Apple/TRS-80 appearing was
>>>>> CP/M bringing with it industry standard applications (WordStar in
>>>>> particular).
>>>>
>>>> A shame CP/M was killed of by MS-DOS. Would had been interesting to see
>>>> what happened to it if not. Especially when the GUIs came out in the mid
>>>> 80. I know GEM ran on it, but (other than used in an ATARI ST and for
>>>> UNIX/Linux) it never really took off or was developed further.
>>>
>>> GEM ran on PC/MS DOS, too. At the time I thought it was a better bet than
>>> windows, probably because of smaller resource requirements. (my "distaste"
>>> for microsoft came later).
>>>
>>
>> 1987 I had the Amstrad PC1512 (2 off 5" floppies" ) which came with the
>> choice of PCDOS or GEM operating systems
> 
> I don't think GEM was an OS. It was move of a graphical shell.
> 

I'll bow to your better knowledge. I remember being disappointed that it
was just a graphical means of displaying a directory's contents and 
launching programs so didn't dally further.

I recall being excited to have a copy of Ray Duncan's book, Advanced 
MSDOS, but how trivial its contents seem now over 30 years later. 
Interesting that MSDOS had two file handling conventions, that of
CP/M and also that of UNIX.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:20 -0700
Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:11:20 -0400
> > Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:34:53 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> The next important thing after the PET/Apple/TRS-80 appearing
> >>> was CP/M bringing with it industry standard applications (WordStar in
> >>> particular).
> >> 
> >> A shame CP/M was killed of by MS-DOS. Would had been interesting to see
> > 
> > 	Indeed it was, although MP/M kept it going in some places until
> > the 80286 and XENIX became a better multi-user option.
> > 
> >> what happened to it if not. Especially when the GUIs came out in the
> >> mid
> >> 80. I know GEM ran on it, but (other than used in an ATARI ST and for
> >> UNIX/Linux) it never really took off or was developed further.
> > 
> > 	There was a lot going on in the multi-user/tasking area with
> > CP/M and MP/M in the latter days - things like the Micromation machine
> > with a Z80 and 64K behind each terminal connector running CP/M and
> > another one running MP/M managing the whole lot, or the Televideo star
> > networks of CP/M and MP/M machines.
> > 
> 
> Okay, I was going to ask what CP/M had that DOS didn't (except nostalgia),

	Users - sort of, CP/M had a user ID concept that could partition
what you saw on the disc.

> since the latter was derived from the former. Once you include MP/M I can
> see a difference. On the other hand it's a shame the unix wasn't able to
> get into this space earlier - resource and legal requirements?

	Price! Unix licences tended to cost around $1000 per machine which
wasn't so bad for 10-20 user machines (68K/QIC02 box like a fridge for the
most part) but a non-starter for 1-3 user machines.

> It took
> Linus to turn unix into a true, and widely-used,  personal operating
> system.

	SCO XENIX turned the tide, just before Linux emerged, by dropping
the licence price to something rather more reasonable - there were quite a
lot of systems put together based on networks of PCs running SCO XENIX.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:20 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> Okay, I was going to ask what CP/M had that DOS didn't (except
> nostalgia),
> since the latter was derived from the former. Once you include MP/M I
> can see a difference. On the other hand it's a shame the unix wasn't
> able to get into this space earlier - resource and legal requirements?

Resource requirements, mainly. UNIX on an 8086 wasn't really feasible 
(although Minix did it in the end).

> It took Linus to turn unix into a true, and widely-used,  personal
> operating system.

Well ... 386BSD (becoming {Free,Net,Open}BSD was stable a little bit 
earlier, but didn't get Linus' marketing push.

And none of these are truly UNIX, in the legal sense of the name. BSD is 
a bit nearer in the code sense.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 2018-03-20, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:11:20 -0400
> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:34:53 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>>> 	The next important thing after the PET/Apple/TRS-80 appearing
>>> was CP/M bringing with it industry standard applications (WordStar in
>>> particular).
>> 
>> A shame CP/M was killed of by MS-DOS. Would had been interesting to see
>
> 	Indeed it was, although MP/M kept it going in some places until
> the 80286 and XENIX became a better multi-user option.
>
>> what happened to it if not. Especially when the GUIs came out in the mid
>> 80. I know GEM ran on it, but (other than used in an ATARI ST and for
>> UNIX/Linux) it never really took off or was developed further.
>
> 	There was a lot going on in the multi-user/tasking area with CP/M
> and MP/M in the latter days - things like the Micromation machine with a
> Z80 and 64K behind each terminal connector running CP/M and another one
> running MP/M managing the whole lot, or the Televideo star networks of CP/M
> and MP/M machines.

TurboDOS was another interesting path, and contained some evolutionary
features like integrated support for a time-of-day clock, and decent
serial port handling.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:20 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
>> Okay, I was going to ask what CP/M had that DOS didn't (except
>> nostalgia),
>> since the latter was derived from the former. Once you include MP/M I
>> can see a difference. On the other hand it's a shame the unix wasn't
>> able to get into this space earlier - resource and legal requirements?
> 
> Resource requirements, mainly. UNIX on an 8086 wasn't really feasible 
> (although Minix did it in the end).

I was thinking about this last night. I ran Minix on an XT and it was
painfully slow, and I had the feeling it could die at any point (a pipe
could fill up, for example) It was somewhat useful as a tool to learn unix,
but not for much else.

> 
>> It took Linus to turn unix into a true, and widely-used,  personal
>> operating system.
> 
> Well ... 386BSD (becoming {Free,Net,Open}BSD was stable a little bit 
> earlier, but didn't get Linus' marketing push.

That was my other thought: why Linux and not BSD?

> 
> And none of these are truly UNIX, in the legal sense of the name. BSD is 
> a bit nearer in the code sense.
> 

That legal stuff was a big part of the problem. There were a ton of -nix,
more-or-less like unix, but none could be unix.

-- 
Pete

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:20 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>> 
>>> Okay, I was going to ask what CP/M had that DOS didn't (except
>>> nostalgia),
>>> since the latter was derived from the former. Once you include MP/M I
>>> can see a difference. On the other hand it's a shame the unix wasn't
>>> able to get into this space earlier - resource and legal requirements?
>> 
>> Resource requirements, mainly. UNIX on an 8086 wasn't really feasible 
>> (although Minix did it in the end).
>
>I was thinking about this last night. I ran Minix on an XT and it was
>painfully slow, and I had the feeling it could die at any point (a pipe
>could fill up, for example) It was somewhat useful as a tool to learn unix,
>but not for much else.
>
>> 
>>> It took Linus to turn unix into a true, and widely-used,  personal
>>> operating system.
>> 
>> Well ... 386BSD (becoming {Free,Net,Open}BSD was stable a little bit 
>> earlier, but didn't get Linus' marketing push.
>
>That was my other thought: why Linux and not BSD?

I suspect the SYSV v. BSD issue.  Linux is much closer
to system V than BSD.

Then there was IBM, SGI, HP and others pumping tons
of money into linux (by allowing employees to contribute
to Linux on company time, sponsering conventions, etc).

>> 
>> And none of these are truly UNIX, in the legal sense of the name. BSD is 
>> a bit nearer in the code sense.
>> 
>
>That legal stuff was a big part of the problem. 

It wasn't so much legal stuff as normal competition.   Digital Unix,
Irix, AIX, HP-UX, Unixware, et alia, all had "proprietary" features
that generally granted an advantage on company hardware - most of
which was also proprietary (and thus, exposing details via a common
Unix would have not been interesting to management).


>There were a ton of -nix,
>more-or-less like unix, but none could be unix.

Actually, there was (and still is) a branding program that
allows an implementation to call itself Unix.   Some versions
of Apple OS/X have been branded Unix '03, for example.

Unixware (nee SVR4) was the direct descendent of T&R Unix and was offered
by many hardware vendors in the day (e.g. Unisys, NCR, Fujitsu,
et alia).

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:42:31 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:34:53 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>> A shame CP/M was killed of by MS-DOS. Would had been interesting to see
>> what happened to it if not. Especially when the GUIs came out in the mid
>> 80. I know GEM ran on it, but (other than used in an ATARI ST and for
>> UNIX/Linux) it never really took off or was developed further.
>
> GEM ran on PC/MS DOS, too. At the time I thought it was a better bet than
> windows, probably because of smaller resource requirements. (my "distaste"
> for microsoft came later).

Unfortunately users use when they are equipped with. Windows was the
"choice" then instead of the probably superior GEM.
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:21 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> GEM ran on PC/MS DOS, too. At the time I thought it was a better bet than
>>> windows, probably because of smaller resource requirements. (my "distaste"
>>> for microsoft came later).
>>> 
>> 
>> 1987 I had the Amstrad PC1512 (2 off 5" floppies" ) which came with the 
>> choice of PCDOS or GEM operating systems
>
> I don't think GEM was an OS. It was move of a graphical shell.

It was. But neither were Windows desktops before Windows 2000/NT. Windows
9x/ME were just a graphical shell running on MS-DOS. No need to blame GEM
here.
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:20 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:11:20 -0400
>> 
>> 	There was a lot going on in the multi-user/tasking area with CP/M
>> and MP/M in the latter days - things like the Micromation machine with a
>> Z80 and 64K behind each terminal connector running CP/M and another one
>> running MP/M managing the whole lot, or the Televideo star networks of CP/M
>> and MP/M machines.
>> 
>
> Okay, I was going to ask what CP/M had that DOS didn't (except nostalgia),

Haha! :-)

> since the latter was derived from the former. Once you include MP/M I can
> see a difference.

CP/M could distinguish users. Although there was no real security around
at first.

With MP/M (1979) you had multitasking. Thus you could send a file to the
printer while continuing other work, while on MS-DOS the PC would be
blocked until the print job was completed. That's while some companies
offered hardware printer buffers (for MS-DOS and other non-multitasking
systems) to avoid this.
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:20 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>> 
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:11:20 -0400
>>> 
>>> There was a lot going on in the multi-user/tasking area with CP/M
>>> and MP/M in the latter days - things like the Micromation machine with a
>>> Z80 and 64K behind each terminal connector running CP/M and another one
>>> running MP/M managing the whole lot, or the Televideo star networks of CP/M
>>> and MP/M machines.
>>> 
>> 
>> Okay, I was going to ask what CP/M had that DOS didn't (except nostalgia),
> 
> Haha! :-)
> 
>> since the latter was derived from the former. Once you include MP/M I can
>> see a difference.
> 
> CP/M could distinguish users. Although there was no real security around
> at first.
> 
> With MP/M (1979) you had multitasking. Thus you could send a file to the
> printer while continuing other work, while on MS-DOS the PC would be
> blocked until the print job was completed. That's while some companies
> offered hardware printer buffers (for MS-DOS and other non-multitasking
> systems) to avoid this.

I thought print spooling was one of the few multitasking features in DOS.

-- 
Pete

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:00:44 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:20 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:11:20 -0400
>>>> 
>>>> There was a lot going on in the multi-user/tasking area with CP/M and
>>>> MP/M in the latter days - things like the Micromation machine with a
>>>> Z80 and 64K behind each terminal connector running CP/M and another
>>>> one running MP/M managing the whole lot, or the Televideo star
>>>> networks of CP/M and MP/M machines.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> Okay, I was going to ask what CP/M had that DOS didn't (except
>>> nostalgia),
>> 
>> Haha! :-)
>> 
>>> since the latter was derived from the former. Once you include MP/M I
>>> can see a difference.
>> 
>> CP/M could distinguish users. Although there was no real security
>> around at first.
>> 
>> With MP/M (1979) you had multitasking. Thus you could send a file to
>> the printer while continuing other work, while on MS-DOS the PC would
>> be blocked until the print job was completed. That's while some
>> companies offered hardware printer buffers (for MS-DOS and other
>> non-multitasking systems) to avoid this.
> 
> I thought print spooling was one of the few multitasking features in
> DOS.

It worked, but it was a bit lumpy.

I remember writing one for RT-11FB years before that.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 2018-03-21 22:13, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:21 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> GEM ran on PC/MS DOS, too. At the time I thought it was a better bet than
>>>> windows, probably because of smaller resource requirements. (my "distaste"
>>>> for microsoft came later).
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1987 I had the Amstrad PC1512 (2 off 5" floppies" ) which came with the 
>>> choice of PCDOS or GEM operating systems
>>
>> I don't think GEM was an OS. It was move of a graphical shell.
> 
> It was. But neither were Windows desktops before Windows 2000/NT. Windows
> 9x/ME were just a graphical shell running on MS-DOS. No need to blame GEM
> here.

No, even windows 3 was more than a graphical shell. Call it incomplete,
faulty, whatever. But certainly more than a graphical shell. It replaced
many if not most of the bios and dos calls with its own code, for instance.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2018-03-21 11:00, Huge wrote:
> On 2018-03-20, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> 
> [31 lines snipped]
> 
>>> A shame CP/M was killed of by MS-DOS. Would had been interesting to see
>>> what happened to it if not. Especially when the GUIs came out in the mid
>>> 80. I know GEM ran on it, but (other than used in an ATARI ST and for
>>> UNIX/Linux) it never really took off or was developed further.
>>
>> GEM ran on PC/MS DOS, too. At the time I thought it was a better bet than
>> windows, probably because of smaller resource requirements. 
> 
> The Amstrad PC1512 came with GEM (I had one).

It could do little more than manage files. I played with it a bit
sometimes, then abandoned it. I think it had a drawing program that used
the extra high resolution and colour mode of the Amstrad, but that was
about it.

(it had a CGA-Hi mode in 16 colours, I think it was, instead of B/W)


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

Due to a patent claim by Apple, GEM Desktop ceased to be available for 
the PC, even though it continued to be available on the Atari ST.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 02:17:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-03-21 11:00, Huge wrote:
>> On 2018-03-20, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> 
>> [31 lines snipped]
>> 
>>>> A shame CP/M was killed of by MS-DOS. Would had been interesting to see
>>>> what happened to it if not. Especially when the GUIs came out in the mid
>>>> 80. I know GEM ran on it, but (other than used in an ATARI ST and for
>>>> UNIX/Linux) it never really took off or was developed further.
>>>
>>> GEM ran on PC/MS DOS, too. At the time I thought it was a better bet than
>>> windows, probably because of smaller resource requirements. 
>> 
>> The Amstrad PC1512 came with GEM (I had one).
>
> It could do little more than manage files.

Mainly because it didn't have the market share to get people to write
applications for GEM (and TBH Microsoft had the same issue with Windows
1.0 which in many ways was worse than GEM).

I wrote a library so that one of our text-mode oil-industry database
application (written in Clipper Autumn 86) could call the Gem VDI (the
low level graphics interface), switch to graphics, and plot a map of
the pipeline. I remember struggling with one particular VDI call I
thought would be useful for days before I gave in and called tech-
support only to be told "that function doesn't work and we don't 
have any plans to fix it soon".

-- 
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
   - Douglas Adams

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:13:48 GMT, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net>
wrote: 

> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:21 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> GEM ran on PC/MS DOS, too. At the time I thought it was a better
>>>> bet than windows, probably because of smaller resource
>>>> requirements. (my "distaste" for microsoft came later).
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1987 I had the Amstrad PC1512 (2 off 5" floppies" ) which came with
>>> the choice of PCDOS or GEM operating systems
>>
>> I don't think GEM was an OS. It was move of a graphical shell.
> 
> It was. But neither were Windows desktops before Windows 2000/NT.
> Windows 9x/ME were just a graphical shell running on MS-DOS. No need
> to blame GEM here.

Before Desqview conquered the world.
I was OK with DOS's "Shell"
-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:13:48 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:21 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> GEM ran on PC/MS DOS, too. At the time I thought it was a better bet than
>>>> windows, probably because of smaller resource requirements. (my "distaste"
>>>> for microsoft came later).
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1987 I had the Amstrad PC1512 (2 off 5" floppies" ) which came with the 
>>> choice of PCDOS or GEM operating systems
>>
>> I don't think GEM was an OS. It was move of a graphical shell.
>
>It was. But neither were Windows desktops before Windows 2000/NT. Windows
>9x/ME were just a graphical shell running on MS-DOS. No need to blame GEM
>here.

Incorrect.  Windows 9x/ME were *not* graphical shells running on MS-DOS.  They
were complete operating systems.

Actually, they were graphical shells running on a modified version of MS-
DOS, but this was disguised by not being able to turn off starting the 
graphical environment on boot.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:00:44 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:20 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> CP/M could distinguish users. Although there was no real security around
>> at first.
>> 
>> With MP/M (1979) you had multitasking. Thus you could send a file to the
>> printer while continuing other work, while on MS-DOS the PC would be
>> blocked until the print job was completed. That's while some companies
>> offered hardware printer buffers (for MS-DOS and other non-multitasking
>> systems) to avoid this.
>
> I thought print spooling was one of the few multitasking features in DOS.

Can't tell, never used MS-DOS - well once on a computer training in the
Army in 1988 and in the mid 90s at home since it powered Windows 9x. But
I read a lot of ads in the BYTE magazine and others advertising external
printer spoolers, working with *any* OS. Although I thought Concurrent
CP/M (MP/M) wouldn't really need them. And that is what MP/M also
advertised in their own contemporary ads.
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 02:12:36 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
> On 2018-03-21 22:13, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:21 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1987 I had the Amstrad PC1512 (2 off 5" floppies" ) which came with the 
>>>> choice of PCDOS or GEM operating systems
>>>
>>> I don't think GEM was an OS. It was move of a graphical shell.
>> 
>> It was. But neither were Windows desktops before Windows 2000/NT. Windows
>> 9x/ME were just a graphical shell running on MS-DOS. No need to blame GEM
>> here.
>
> No, even windows 3 was more than a graphical shell. Call it incomplete,
> faulty, whatever. But certainly more than a graphical shell. It replaced
> many if not most of the bios and dos calls with its own code, for instance.

Okay. But deprive it of MS-DOS and it won't work. Same today with the
Gnome or KDE (or any other) desktop environment for Linux. If there is no
Linux (or other OS) working below it can't work on its own.
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:00:20 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 02:17:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2018-03-21 11:00, Huge wrote:
> 
>>> [31 lines snipped]

Did you count it? ;-)

>>> The Amstrad PC1512 came with GEM (I had one).
>>
>> It could do little more than manage files.
>
> Mainly because it didn't have the market share to get people to write
> applications for GEM (and TBH Microsoft had the same issue with Windows
> 1.0 which in many ways was worse than GEM).
>
> I wrote a library so that one of our text-mode oil-industry database
> application (written in Clipper Autumn 86) could call the Gem VDI (the
> low level graphics interface), switch to graphics, and plot a map of
> the pipeline. I remember struggling with one particular VDI call I
> thought would be useful for days before I gave in and called tech-
> support only to be told "that function doesn't work and we don't 
> have any plans to fix it soon".

Do you still have it? Not that I am particularly interested. But things
like that should be archived to be preserved.
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:23:55 GMT, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> Actually, they were graphical shells running on a modified version of 
MS-
> DOS, but this was disguised by not being able to turn off starting the 
> graphical environment on boot.
> 

Did you never press F5 or F8?

-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On 3/21/2018 7:00 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:

>> With MP/M (1979) you had multitasking. Thus you could send a file to the
>> printer while continuing other work, while on MS-DOS the PC would be
>> blocked until the print job was completed. That's while some companies
>> offered hardware printer buffers (for MS-DOS and other non-multitasking
>> systems) to avoid this.
> 
> I thought print spooling was one of the few multitasking features in DOS.
> 

I don't think so. ISTR being happy when I found a (freeware/shareware) 
TSR that would print spool.

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 9:32:08 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:

> I don't think so. ISTR being happy when I found a (freeware/shareware) 
> TSR that would print spool.

This reminds me. Came across an old ad for some print spooler. Should have taken 
a screen grab.

Ad had a blue background.

Person with print spooler eating meal in restaurant.

Frustrated person without sitting at... Gene Roddenberry's mystery computer.

John Savard

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>Actually, they were graphical shells running on a modified version of MS-
>DOS, but this was disguised by not being able to turn off starting the 
>graphical environment on boot.

Incorrect.

In MSDOS.SYS:

BootGUI=0

Will supress booting Win9X and just loads COMMAND.COM instead.

On 2018-03-22 21:41, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 02:12:36 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-03-21 22:13, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:21 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1987 I had the Amstrad PC1512 (2 off 5" floppies" ) which came with the 
>>>>> choice of PCDOS or GEM operating systems
>>>>
>>>> I don't think GEM was an OS. It was move of a graphical shell.
>>>
>>> It was. But neither were Windows desktops before Windows 2000/NT. Windows
>>> 9x/ME were just a graphical shell running on MS-DOS. No need to blame GEM
>>> here.
>>
>> No, even windows 3 was more than a graphical shell. Call it incomplete,
>> faulty, whatever. But certainly more than a graphical shell. It replaced
>> many if not most of the bios and dos calls with its own code, for instance.
> 
> Okay. But deprive it of MS-DOS and it won't work. Same today with the
> Gnome or KDE (or any other) desktop environment for Linux. If there is no
> Linux (or other OS) working below it can't work on its own.
> 

It would be correct to say "deprive it of MS-DOS and it won't boot",
which applies at least to version 3, not beyond, IMO. At least partially.

The case of Linux is very different: Windows replaced many of the bios
and msdos calls with their own that worked in a mode (was it real or
enhanced? I forgot) that allowed it to access the entire memory map
directly and other advantages.

Linux already replaces all the calls with their own system, that has all
features available. When it switches to graphical mode it doesn't change
cpu mode and doesn't replace functions: it uses them.

Windows 3 replaced the obsolete MsDOS beneath, but graphic Linux uses
the entire Linux system "beneath" as is.

So to speak, others may correct me in the terms :-)


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:43:54 AM UTC-4, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

> >Also the "personal computer" boom started in the 80s.
> 
>      Mid '70s.
> 
>      IBM joined in after the market had been established.


IMHO, the personal computer market was a niche specialty field
with _relatively_ few units sold until the IBM PC hit the streets
_and_ was accepted by the business community.

On 22 Mar 2018 22:35:05 GMT, Huge wrote:
>
> On 2018-03-22, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:00:20 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 02:17:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-03-21 11:00, Huge wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> [31 lines snipped]
>>
>> Did you count it? ;-)
>
> Don't be ridiculous. It's an editor plugin.

I used slrn before switching to Gnus many many moons ago but never
noticed that function. Am sure Gnus can do this too, but also never
bothered to look into that.
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 20:48:53 -0000 (UTC), Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:23:55 GMT, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> Actually, they were graphical shells running on a modified version of 
> MS-
>> DOS, but this was disguised by not being able to turn off starting the 
>> graphical environment on boot.
>> 
>
> Did you never press F5 or F8?

I seem to recall that the win.ini had an option like "gui=0" and it would
boot you into MS-DOS with no graphical environment. Cannot verify that right
now...
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:32:38 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:43:54 AM UTC-4, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> >Also the "personal computer" boom started in the 80s.
>> 
>>      Mid '70s.
>> 
>>      IBM joined in after the market had been established.
>
>
>IMHO, the personal computer market was a niche specialty field
>with _relatively_ few units sold until the IBM PC hit the streets
>_and_ was accepted by the business community.

For certain values of "relatively few".  DEC sold a total of about
600,000 PDP 11s during the entire history of the product.  The
personal computer industry sold 1.5 million units in 1981 alone.  That
was just _before_ the IBM PC hit.
>

On 3/22/2018 3:38 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:00:44 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:20 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> CP/M could distinguish users. Although there was no real security around
>>> at first.
>>>
>>> With MP/M (1979) you had multitasking. Thus you could send a file to the
>>> printer while continuing other work, while on MS-DOS the PC would be
>>> blocked until the print job was completed. That's while some companies
>>> offered hardware printer buffers (for MS-DOS and other non-multitasking
>>> systems) to avoid this.
>>
>> I thought print spooling was one of the few multitasking features in DOS.
> 
> Can't tell, never used MS-DOS - well once on a computer training in the
> Army in 1988 and in the mid 90s at home since it powered Windows 9x. But
> I read a lot of ads in the BYTE magazine and others advertising external
> printer spoolers, working with *any* OS. Although I thought Concurrent
> CP/M (MP/M) wouldn't really need them. And that is what MP/M also
> advertised in their own contemporary ads.
> 

Dot matrix printers came with built-in RAM buffers... which often could 
be expanded with additional RAM.  If you only print a few pages, it 
might all fit in the RAM buffer... and your computer would consider the 
print job finished.  Thus you only needed an additional print spooler if 
you often printed large print jobs.

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:55:46 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
> On 3/22/2018 3:38 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>> Can't tell, never used MS-DOS - well once on a computer training in the
>> Army in 1988 and in the mid 90s at home since it powered Windows 9x. But
>> I read a lot of ads in the BYTE magazine and others advertising external
>> printer spoolers, working with *any* OS. Although I thought Concurrent
>> CP/M (MP/M) wouldn't really need them. And that is what MP/M also
>> advertised in their own contemporary ads.
>>
>
> Dot matrix printers came with built-in RAM buffers... which often
> could be expanded with additional RAM.  If you only print a few pages,
> it might all fit in the RAM buffer... and your computer would consider
> the print job finished.  Thus you only needed an additional print
> spooler if you often printed large print jobs.

Would they take several pages (one page text might be around 1KB)? What
about daisywheel printers and RAM?

Why would they advertise RAM spoolers if there was no need for?
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On 3/24/2018 3:52 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:55:46 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>> On 3/22/2018 3:38 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>
>>> Can't tell, never used MS-DOS - well once on a computer training in the
>>> Army in 1988 and in the mid 90s at home since it powered Windows 9x. But
>>> I read a lot of ads in the BYTE magazine and others advertising external
>>> printer spoolers, working with *any* OS. Although I thought Concurrent
>>> CP/M (MP/M) wouldn't really need them. And that is what MP/M also
>>> advertised in their own contemporary ads.
>>>
>>
>> Dot matrix printers came with built-in RAM buffers... which often
>> could be expanded with additional RAM.  If you only print a few pages,
>> it might all fit in the RAM buffer... and your computer would consider
>> the print job finished.  Thus you only needed an additional print
>> spooler if you often printed large print jobs.
> 
> Would they take several pages (one page text might be around 1KB)? What
> about daisywheel printers and RAM?
> 
> Why would they advertise RAM spoolers if there was no need for?
> 

1)  Maybe some folks *thought* they needed a spooler or couldbe sold one 
the did *not* need

2)  Some people with many large print jobs needed/wanted the spooler to 
get rid of the printing delay.

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 4:52:31 PM UTC-4, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:

> > Dot matrix printers came with built-in RAM buffers... which often
> > could be expanded with additional RAM.  If you only print a few pages,
> > it might all fit in the RAM buffer... and your computer would consider
> > the print job finished.  Thus you only needed an additional print
> > spooler if you often printed large print jobs.
 
> Would they take several pages (one page text might be around 1KB)? What
> about daisywheel printers and RAM?
 
> Why would they advertise RAM spoolers if there was no need for?

Printer buffers expanded over time.  Our early Okidata printers
had very little buffering, maybe one or two lines at best.  Later
Okidata units had a full page.

My Panasonic printer could keep about 3/4 of a page.

As an aside, the Panasonic printer had a control panel where one
could select the typeface and size.  It was kind of tricky to 
use and I never bothered with it.  It was far easier to run
a one line BASIC program with PRINT CHR$(n) with the appropriate
printer codes to set it up.

The Panasonic supported...
10, 12, and 15 chars/inch.  The 15 cpi was very useful at times.
typefaces included Prestige Elite, Courier, Sans Serif, Script,
and a proportional.  For correspondence, I preferred Prestige Elite 
(elite pitch 12 cpi) or Courier (pica pitch 10 cpi).

The printer handled card stock easily.  I often sent out postcards.
I had a box of sprocket fed 4x6" card stock which was very useful
as postcards.  There were times I wanted to pack a lot of information
on the card, and used 15 cpi.  Certainly adequate.  (Most of the
things I did with postcards are now obsolete; can be done with
email.)

There was also a double width/double height which was could
for labels and headings, though that printed very slowly.

While it could print graphics, they were very coarse and printed
very slowly.  Not really worth it.

On Wed, 2018-03-21, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:20 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
...
>>>> It took Linus to turn unix into a true, and widely-used,  personal
>>>> operating system.
>>> 
>>> Well ... 386BSD (becoming {Free,Net,Open}BSD was stable a little bit 
>>> earlier, but didn't get Linus' marketing push.
>>
>>That was my other thought: why Linux and not BSD?
>
> I suspect the SYSV v. BSD issue.  Linux is much closer
> to system V than BSD.
>
> Then there was IBM, SGI, HP and others pumping tons
> of money into linux (by allowing employees to contribute
> to Linux on company time, sponsering conventions, etc).

They do that /now/, but I don't remember that they did in the 1990s,
when Linux won.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

In article <slrnpblj1u.eu5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid>,
Jorgen Grahn  <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>On Wed, 2018-03-21, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:20 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>...
>>>>> It took Linus to turn unix into a true, and widely-used,  personal
>>>>> operating system.
>>>> 
>>>> Well ... 386BSD (becoming {Free,Net,Open}BSD was stable a little bit 
>>>> earlier, but didn't get Linus' marketing push.
>>>
>>>That was my other thought: why Linux and not BSD?
>>
>> I suspect the SYSV v. BSD issue.  Linux is much closer
>> to system V than BSD.
>>
>> Then there was IBM, SGI, HP and others pumping tons
>> of money into linux (by allowing employees to contribute
>> to Linux on company time, sponsering conventions, etc).
>
>They do that /now/, but I don't remember that they did in the 1990s,
>when Linux won.
>
>/Jorgen

I think there were issues with lingering AT&T claims to BSD which
slowed things down for a while as parts had to be rewritten "clean",
and also 386BSD stalled for a while as the author had in mind more
of a teaching tool than a supported, stable system and things didn't
take off for FreeBSD & NetBSD until it was forked.
-- 
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 28 Mar 2018 03:17:00 GMT
t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:

> In article <slrnpblj1u.eu5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid>,
> Jorgen Grahn  <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> >On Wed, 2018-03-21, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>>Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:20 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
> >...
> >>>>> It took Linus to turn unix into a true, and widely-used,  personal
> >>>>> operating system.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Well ... 386BSD (becoming {Free,Net,Open}BSD was stable a little bit 
> >>>> earlier, but didn't get Linus' marketing push.
> >>>
> >>>That was my other thought: why Linux and not BSD?
> >>
> >> I suspect the SYSV v. BSD issue.  Linux is much closer
> >> to system V than BSD.
> >>
> >> Then there was IBM, SGI, HP and others pumping tons
> >> of money into linux (by allowing employees to contribute
> >> to Linux on company time, sponsering conventions, etc).
> >
> >They do that /now/, but I don't remember that they did in the 1990s,
> >when Linux won.
> >
> >/Jorgen
> 
> I think there were issues with lingering AT&T claims to BSD which
> slowed things down for a while as parts had to be rewritten "clean",

	Yes there were, the clean versions didn't come out until near the
end of 1994.

> and also 386BSD stalled for a while as the author had in mind more
> of a teaching tool than a supported, stable system and things didn't
> take off for FreeBSD & NetBSD until it was forked.

	Yes, I discovered the BSDs shortly after the fork (1993) after
trying Linux (bought on floppies) and finding it OK but not good enough for
what I wanted. It was confusing 386BSD, BSD386, NetBSD, FreeBSD were all
talked about with some people managing to mix up the first two (one was
commercial for the 386) - I wound up asking on USENET and getting a good
answer (even if it did claim that Linux was a toy).

	So in 1992/3 Linux could be found advertised in local papers on a
stack of floppies, the BSDs took digging and asking about to find and
required a painful download (at 14.4k peak often less than a kilobyte per
second) before trying. By the time the BSDs were more visible with web
sites and fast ftp sites (1994) Linux was appearing on CDs stuck to
magazines and in the back of books about Linux.

	The early gap wasn't big but it didn't need to be to make a big
difference, the ramp up was steep!

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> writes:
>On Wed, 2018-03-21, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:21:20 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>...
>>>>> It took Linus to turn unix into a true, and widely-used,  personal
>>>>> operating system.
>>>> 
>>>> Well ... 386BSD (becoming {Free,Net,Open}BSD was stable a little bit 
>>>> earlier, but didn't get Linus' marketing push.
>>>
>>>That was my other thought: why Linux and not BSD?
>>
>> I suspect the SYSV v. BSD issue.  Linux is much closer
>> to system V than BSD.
>>
>> Then there was IBM, SGI, HP and others pumping tons
>> of money into linux (by allowing employees to contribute
>> to Linux on company time, sponsering conventions, etc).
>
>They do that /now/, but I don't remember that they did in the 1990s,
>when Linux won.

I was at SGI in the 1990's, as part of a group that contributed
to linux (my contribution was kdb - the in-kernel debugger).   Sequent (IBM)
was contributing RCU about then. 

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> writes:

> On 28 Mar 2018 03:17:00 GMT
> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> 
>> and also 386BSD stalled for a while as the author had in mind more
>> of a teaching tool than a supported, stable system and things didn't
>> take off for FreeBSD & NetBSD until it was forked.
> 
> 	Yes, I discovered the BSDs shortly after the fork (1993) after
> trying Linux (bought on floppies) and finding it OK but not good enough for
> what I wanted. It was confusing 386BSD, BSD386, NetBSD, FreeBSD were all
> talked about with some people managing to mix up the first two (one was
> commercial for the 386) - I wound up asking on USENET and getting a good
> answer (even if it did claim that Linux was a toy).

I got my first intro to Unix in '89, realized immediately that this
was where I wanted to go.  But there appeard to be a mare's nest of
legal and technical penc around the whole BSD shebang.  I had remote
access to Unix so I kept putting it off.  Didn't want to have to
figure out all the gnarly details of the conflict.

In '99 my Unix access threatened to go away so I bought a used Intel
486 machine and moved to Linux.  Haven't looked back since. (Well,
except that my very first shot was Caldera Linux from a CD in a Great
Fat Book.  That lasted only long enough to figure out how to get and
install Slackware.)


-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <874lkxibcu.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>,
Mike Spencer  <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On 28 Mar 2018 03:17:00 GMT
>> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>> 
>>> and also 386BSD stalled for a while as the author had in mind more
>>> of a teaching tool than a supported, stable system and things didn't
>>> take off for FreeBSD & NetBSD until it was forked.
>> 
>> 	Yes, I discovered the BSDs shortly after the fork (1993) after
>> trying Linux (bought on floppies) and finding it OK but not good enough for
>> what I wanted. It was confusing 386BSD, BSD386, NetBSD, FreeBSD were all
>> talked about with some people managing to mix up the first two (one was
>> commercial for the 386) - I wound up asking on USENET and getting a good
>> answer (even if it did claim that Linux was a toy).
>
>I got my first intro to Unix in '89, realized immediately that this
>was where I wanted to go.  But there appeard to be a mare's nest of
>legal and technical penc around the whole BSD shebang.  I had remote
>access to Unix so I kept putting it off.  Didn't want to have to
>figure out all the gnarly details of the conflict.
>
>In '99 my Unix access threatened to go away so I bought a used Intel
>486 machine and moved to Linux.  Haven't looked back since. (Well,
>except that my very first shot was Caldera Linux from a CD in a Great
>Fat Book.  That lasted only long enough to figure out how to get and
>install Slackware.)
>

I have always run FreeBSD at home, but professionally, it always seems to
be Linux on the job (after it stopped being Sun).  It didn't have to be
that way (and FreeBSD ran some major sites at one time I think) but that's
the way it's fallen out.
-- 
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 30 Mar 2018 16:58:57 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
> I got my first intro to Unix in '89, realized immediately that this
> was where I wanted to go.  But there appeard to be a mare's nest of
> legal and technical penc around the whole BSD shebang.  I had remote
> access to Unix so I kept putting it off.  Didn't want to have to
> figure out all the gnarly details of the conflict.
>
> In '99 my Unix access threatened to go away so I bought a used Intel
> 486 machine and moved to Linux.  Haven't looked back since. (Well,
> except that my very first shot was Caldera Linux from a CD in a Great
> Fat Book.  That lasted only long enough to figure out how to get and
> install Slackware.)

Here it's the other way round. I used Linux since 1998 (yeah, late bloomer ;-)
and still use it today, like writing this article on it. But I also
looked into some BSD distributions and have one on a another hard disk
partition ready to boot.
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/