On 10/27/2015 8:32 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 27/10/2015 07:50 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 10/27/2015 6:58 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> I think there's a lot you can do that's interesting without any
>>>> video at
>>>> all.
>>>
>>> Oh, really?
>>>
>>> [That maybe sounded sarcastic. It wasn't meant to.]
>>>
>>> Clearly you've got different ideas to me... What kinda thing are you
>>> thinking?
>>>
>>> [Genuinely interested here.]
>>
>> Break codes, calculate ballistic trajectories, solve engineering
>> problems. Run the finances for Lyons tea house.
>
> Not sure too many children would be interested in any of those.

Calculating ballistic trajectories and blowing up your target sounds 
like fun.

>
>> Text processing and games.
>
> Interesting without display capabilities. ;-)


Did not say that. You said without video.
The output was on a Teletype or a printer.
I played a graphical golf game that used a printer to show the hole and 
where the ball had landed.

Thinking about it and looking up Google. I think that many of these 
games were inhouse programs and not available to the public.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 10/27/2015 11:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Web hosting is the most obvious example.  Music streaming, controlling
> home automation - lots of IoT-related things, actually.

Disturbing. You are looking to the future and I looked to the past.
I must watch out for that.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 28.10.2015 um 08:56 schrieb Stephen:

>> As an aside, Hackaday.io seems to be full of people building computers
>> "from scratch", using only individual logic gates. One guy claimed to be
>> building a computer from nothing but 7400s...
>>
>> ....until you realise that he means the members of the 7400 family that
>> implement entire counters, encoders, decoders, latches, etc.

Fair enough, as far as I'm concerned.

> I hope he has a big power supply and lots of fans.
> In the mid 70's I built a digital clock out of TTL. It needed 25 amps at
> 5 volts to drive the logic. A couple of years later I built one out of
> CMOS and that would run for an hour on a PP3 battery. (It was mains
> powered the battery was for backup.)

I suspect the guy in question wouldn't be using classic TTL (where on
Earth would you get those nowadays, anyway), but rather LS-TTL, cutting
power consumption to 20%.

I for one wouldn't use 7400-family chips anyway, and instead go for a
CPLD (or, more likely, a collection thereof). Makes it much easier to
make minor design changes even after the circuitry has been wired.


> Funnily enough. His project reminded me of you. Did you not once write
> programs in PostScript or Printer Command Language?

PostScript is fun! Especially since it comes with high-resolution
graphics output fully integrated ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 10/28/2015 10:45 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 28.10.2015 um 08:56 schrieb Stephen:
>
>>> As an aside, Hackaday.io seems to be full of people building computers
>>> "from scratch", using only individual logic gates. One guy claimed to be
>>> building a computer from nothing but 7400s...
>>>
>>> ....until you realise that he means the members of the 7400 family that
>>> implement entire counters, encoders, decoders, latches, etc.
>
> Fair enough, as far as I'm concerned.
>
Not worth mentioning unless it was built only using NAND gates. Now that 
would be something. ;-)

>> I hope he has a big power supply and lots of fans.
>> In the mid 70's I built a digital clock out of TTL. It needed 25 amps at
>> 5 volts to drive the logic. A couple of years later I built one out of
>> CMOS and that would run for an hour on a PP3 battery. (It was mains
>> powered the battery was for backup.)
>
> I suspect the guy in question wouldn't be using classic TTL (where on
> Earth would you get those nowadays, anyway), but rather LS-TTL, cutting
> power consumption to 20%.
>

This was about 40 years ago* and I was limited to what I could borrow 
from the production line. :-)
 From what I can remember of the circuit. It was mostly shift registers 
and divide-by counters built from D type flip Flops. Ending up driving 
Nixie Tubes for the display. (I worked for Boroughs at the time and 
there were a few lying around.)

*
I did not invent my Tardis until a few years later. ;-)

> I for one wouldn't use 7400-family chips anyway, and instead go for a
> CPLD (or, more likely, a collection thereof). Makes it much easier to
> make minor design changes even after the circuitry has been wired.
>
>

How about a LM8560? Or if you want to push the boat out and spend USD 4
http://www.ecyberspaces.com/productsview.asp?id=3179


>> Funnily enough. His project reminded me of you. Did you not once write
>> programs in PostScript or Printer Command Language?
>
> PostScript is fun! Especially since it comes with high-resolution
> graphics output fully integrated ;)
>

That raises the question. If Pov will not contemplate using a GPU. How 
about using a printer to do some calculations? :-P

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 28.10.2015 um 13:07 schrieb Stephen:

>> I for one wouldn't use 7400-family chips anyway, and instead go for a
>> CPLD (or, more likely, a collection thereof). Makes it much easier to
>> make minor design changes even after the circuitry has been wired.
> 
> How about a LM8560? Or if you want to push the boat out and spend USD 4
> http://www.ecyberspaces.com/productsview.asp?id=3179

Nah, I'm talking about re-inventing the computer here, not throwing
together a device intended to be mistaken for a suitcase bomb.


>>> Funnily enough. His project reminded me of you. Did you not once write
>>> programs in PostScript or Printer Command Language?
>>
>> PostScript is fun! Especially since it comes with high-resolution
>> graphics output fully integrated ;)
> 
> That raises the question. If Pov will not contemplate using a GPU. How
> about using a printer to do some calculations? :-P

Using the printer as a coprocessor is a rather moot idea, unless you
also include a scanner in the system design; there's no other way to get
data from the printer back into the computer.

You /could/ of course make a PostScript printer do some raytracing
entirely on its own. But I was a bit disappointed by the computing
performance of the printer I once used for generating a printout of the
Mandelbrot set, so I'll probably not pursue this project any further...

Also, I guess we won't get real-time raytracing capabilities out of a
printer anytime soon ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 10/28/2015 1:11 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 28.10.2015 um 13:07 schrieb Stephen:
>
>>> I for one wouldn't use 7400-family chips anyway, and instead go for a
>>> CPLD (or, more likely, a collection thereof). Makes it much easier to
>>> make minor design changes even after the circuitry has been wired.
>>
>> How about a LM8560? Or if you want to push the boat out and spend USD 4
>> http://www.ecyberspaces.com/productsview.asp?id=3179
>
> Nah, I'm talking about re-inventing the computer here, not throwing
> together a device intended to be mistaken for a suitcase bomb.
>
>
That thought had crossed my mind too. When I worked on the rigs I got 
the job of replacing all the batteries in the Bed Head Units every year. 
(A bad job given to me by a small minded boss. Little did he think that 
it gave me carte blanche to order hundreds of AA batteries and the 
opportunity to skive in the accommodation module for days on end. That 
showed me who was boss. :-) )


>>
>> That raises the question. If Pov will not contemplate using a GPU. How
>> about using a printer to do some calculations? :-P
>
> Using the printer as a coprocessor is a rather moot idea, unless you
> also include a scanner in the system design; there's no other way to get
> data from the printer back into the computer.
>

No problem for me there. :-)

> You /could/ of course make a PostScript printer do some raytracing
> entirely on its own. But I was a bit disappointed by the computing
> performance of the printer I once used for generating a printout of the
> Mandelbrot set, so I'll probably not pursue this project any further...
>
> Also, I guess we won't get real-time raytracing capabilities out of a
> printer anytime soon ;)
>

I did not think that it would be a runner. ;)
It takes forever for my printer to start printing after I've sent a page 
over WiFi.

But good to know that the IoT will sometime be a rendering farm.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 10/27/2015 11:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Web hosting is the most obvious example.  Music streaming, controlling
>> home automation - lots of IoT-related things, actually.
> 
> Disturbing. You are looking to the future and I looked to the past.
> I must watch out for that.

Hehehehehe.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 10/28/2015 4:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/2015 11:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Web hosting is the most obvious example.  Music streaming, controlling
>>> home automation - lots of IoT-related things, actually.
>>
>> Disturbing. You are looking to the future and I looked to the past.
>> I must watch out for that.
>
> Hehehehehe.
>

Just you wait. It comes to us all. :-P

Wait one.

Thinking about it. I'm glad that my time is when it is. I despair when I 
see the way the world is going.

If I am asked what I want to be on the next turn of the wheel. I will 
say. "A rock." And I don't mean St. Peter.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:36:08 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 10/28/2015 4:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:07:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/27/2015 11:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Web hosting is the most obvious example.  Music streaming,
>>>> controlling home automation - lots of IoT-related things, actually.
>>>
>>> Disturbing. You are looking to the future and I looked to the past.
>>> I must watch out for that.
>>
>> Hehehehehe.
>>
>>
> Just you wait. It comes to us all. :-P
> 
> Wait one.

Waiting. ;)

But in technology, I see this all the time - IoT isn't a new thing, 
really - I remember seeing networked coffee makers, VCRs, and microwave 
ovens back in the 90's.  It didn't catch on then, but the demo was pretty 
cool.

The idea of on-demand programming was something I was first introduced to 
by someone who worked at NBC back in the mid 90's as well.  He described 
pretty much what we see now with Netflix and other streaming/on-demand 
video services.

> Thinking about it. I'm glad that my time is when it is. I despair when I
> see the way the world is going.

I think we all reach that point eventually.

> If I am asked what I want to be on the next turn of the wheel. I will
> say. "A rock." And I don't mean St. Peter.

I wouldn't have guessed that.  Or maybe I would have. ;)

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 28/10/2015 07:56 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/27/2015 8:31 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Qui-binary...?
>>
>> My mind is blown.
>>
> I know and I thought BCD was strange.

BCD is one thing. LSD...?!

>> As an aside, Hackaday.io seems to be full of people building computers
>> "from scratch", using only individual logic gates. One guy claimed to be
>> building a computer from nothing but 7400s...
>>
>> ....until you realise that he means the members of the 7400 family that
>> implement entire counters, encoders, decoders, latches, etc.
>>
>
> I hope he has a big power supply and lots of fans.

Heh, yeah, well...

>> It's interesting to me that the IBM 1401 appears to be a *real* computer
>> made only from discrete transistors. I'd always assumed that such a
>> thing would fill an entire warehouse. But it doesn't actually look all
>> that big...
>
> That is a media exaggeration. They were forever showing images of
> computer systems in enormous clean rooms with technicians in white coats.
> One company I worked for had an old PDP 8. It fitted inside a 19 inch
> cabinet. I only once opened the door to look at the guts. I then prayed
> it would never break. ;-)

I often wonder... like, how much did [famous obsolete computer] actually 
cost? What did it physically look like? What were its technical 
capabilities? It's very hard to gather a general overview of this type 
of data.

For that matter, how many FLOPS can you get out of an Inter Core i7? I 
have absolutely no idea; it seems very hard to find data for this...

>> Only just finished reading this.
>>
>> Man, that is some special brand of craziness, right there. Mental stuff.
>
> Funnily enough. His project reminded me of you. Did you not once write
> programs in PostScript or Printer Command Language?

PostScript. And it wasn't *once*. ;-)

Actually, I did start trying to write a PostScript *interpreter*, to 
make debugging this stuff easier! It turns out the language has a lot 
more edge-cases than you'd think though...

Post a reply to this message