> From: Christopher Smith
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Woyciesjes [mailto:DAW@yalepress3.unipress.yale.edu]
>
> > > From: Christopher Smith
>
> > > I certainly hope that changes. I could stand to see many people
> > > replace their peesees with Macs.
>
> > Instead of a Mac, how about a DEC 3000/400, or Sun
> > Ulltra1 Creator
> > or an SGI, or...
>
> Even better, but there's less of a chance that will happen.
>
> Chris
>
Unless, of course, you hang around here...
--
--- David A Woyciesjes
--- C & IS Support Specialist
--- Yale University Press
--- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu
--- (203) 432-0953
--- ICQ # - 905818
Mac OS X 10.1 - Darwin Kernel Version 5
Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash
Hi all.
Well, the weekend of the big move is getting closer.
I intend to take 2 RM03's and not only for the good looks!
I actually want to hook them to the 11/70 and operate them.
Changing electricity cabling is planned ;-)
The big question is: how do I move these "washing machines"
so that afterward they still are in working order?
I have experience with head locking RL01/RL02, RK05, RA81
and RA60. I suspect that the RM03 also have some head lock
mechanism. Perhaps also some trick for the spindle like
the tension of the drive belt in the RA81?
Thanks for all the good advice received on the RM03's so far.
I am looking forward to read more on topic info from this
fine list.
For those who like my StarShip website:
I got the stars on the main screen correctly plotted with
the rotation matrix algorithms, so an update will hit the
site in a month or so.
kind regards,
- Henk.
> > Tape Reel High Speed Computer Labels
> > 3-7/8" x 1-13/16", White, Dot Matrix,
> > Removable, 5000 labels per box
> > 04052 5000 Labels per Box $139.15
> >
> > If there are just ten people on the list who'd have use
> > for 500 labels, it's close to fifteen bucks per person.
> >
> > OTOH, is anyone sitting on a stash of them? I found a
> > sheet with precisely three labels, and I've quite a
> > few more tapes than that...
>
> Check to see if the adhesive still sticks to anything. My long-term
> experience with tape-reel labels is that the "permanent' adhesive
> lets go after 10 years or so, leaving me with a rack of unlabeled
> tapes and a bunch of labels on the floor.
Dunno what kind of labels my old ones are, but labels
applied in the 1978 through 1983 period remain firmly
fastened to the reels.
I took one of the three unused label, peeled it from
the backing paper, and applied it to a new reel of tape.
It stuck, but threatened to not do so very well. Some
hand pressure seems to have done the trick. It looks
ok now... write me back in 10 years for an update.
;)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Woyciesjes [mailto:DAW@yalepress3.unipress.yale.edu]
> > From: Christopher Smith
> > I certainly hope that changes. I could stand to see many people
> > replace their peesees with Macs.
> Instead of a Mac, how about a DEC 3000/400, or Sun
> Ulltra1 Creator
> or an SGI, or...
Even better, but there's less of a chance that will happen.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
> On Wed, 1 May 2002, Douglas H. Quebbeman wrote:
> > > OK, so who knows the sequence and differences between:
> > > MP/M-86
> > > Concurrent CP/M-86
> > > Concurrent PC-DOS (announced by DRI at Comdex, because IBM did NOT
> > > trademark "PC-DOS" ("It's a description, not a name"), but
> > > then DRI backed down and changed the name)
> > > Concurrent DOS
> > > DR DOS
> > Very good, Fred! The answer to your question is "Fred Cisin"!
>
> Well, you confirmed my guess as to the sequence, but it wasn't a
> rhetorical question. I really DON'T know what the differences are.
Oops! My bad...
MP/M-86: multiuser, multi-terminal version of CP/M. Supports
more memory than CP/M-86 though...
Concurrent CP/M-86:
MP/M-86 with multi-terminal support removed. User can
run multiple programs simultaneously.
Concurrent PC-DOS:
Concurrent CP/M-86 with support for Microsoft loader
conventions, Microsoft disk formats, etc. while pre-
serving existing CP/M-86 program & media support
Concurrent DOS:
Don't know the differences but whatever it is it's
Concurrent PC-DOS modified to do <xyz>
DR DOS:
Lots of support added for stuff like running mouse
and network drivers in upper memory blocks, etc.
Generally a catch-up revision of the previous
product, but was already surpoassed by the latest
Microsoft DOS.
hth,-dq
> From: Christopher Smith
>
> > There are advantages to being a 5% market... small targets
> > don't get hit
> > often.
>
> I certainly hope that changes. I could stand to see many people
> replace their peesees with Macs.
>
> Chris
>
Instead of a Mac, how about a DEC 3000/400, or Sun Ulltra1 Creator
or an SGI, or...
--
--- David A Woyciesjes
--- C & IS Support Specialist
--- Yale University Press
--- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu
--- (203) 432-0953
--- ICQ # - 905818
Mac OS X 10.1 - Darwin Kernel Version 5
Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash
BTW, if you decide not to keep it, I'll buy it from you.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
> OK, so who knows the sequence and differences between:
>
> MP/M-86
>
> Concurrent CP/M-86
>
> Concurrent PC-DOS (announced by DRI at Comdex, because IBM did NOT
> trademark "PC-DOS" ("It's a description, not a name"), but
> then DRI backed
> down and changed the name)
>
> Concurrent DOS
>
> DR DOS
Very good, Fred! The answer to your question is "Fred Cisin"!
;)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris [mailto:mythtech@mac.com]
> The wonderful bonus you have here with the Mac is... AppleTalk isn't
> passed by home internet routers or modems. So you can safely have the
> default settings of a home file/print sharing turned on on
> your Macs, and
> no one outside of your home network will know it is there.
Won't argue with that. In fact, that sounds like just what I was
saying. ;)
> This changes if you turn on AppleTalk over IP, but since that
> is off by
> default, you must explicitly set it when you turn on your
> filesharing. At
> that point, if you don't know what you are activating, you
> deserve what
> you get.
If you make changes to the configuration, as I said, it's likely
to get worse.
> Also, even if I run servers/services that DO interact with the
> internet... I am far less likely to be hacked simply by
> virtue of there
> is almost no one trying to hack the Mac servers. That isn't true with
> Windows and Unix where any 13yr old script kiddie can get
> tools to make
> attempts.
It's a trivial, but not obvious to an idiot, exercise to make those
"tools" work under Unix, too, and they become outdated very quickly.
If you're running a newer or older Unix than the "tool" is designed
to break, you'll likely have no problem there, either.
This whole part of the discussion might be irrelevant, though, since
nobody does anything interesting in that area any more. It's generally
"denial of service" crap, and mostly depends on saturating peoples'
network pipe, but what can you expect?
> I don't pretend that Mac internet servers are unhackable... just that
> people aren't making easy tools to try, so the script kiddies
> ignore them.
Possible. Just imagine how "safe" Amiga users are in that respect :)
> Much like Mac users being "immune" to viruses. We are FAR
> from immune...
> we just don't really see them because no one is interested in trying.
Wait 'till I get my Prime. ;)
> There are advantages to being a 5% market... small targets
> don't get hit
> often.
I certainly hope that changes. I could stand to see many people
replace their peesees with Macs.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
> And I should clarify, the only reason this machine has been rebooted
>since I loaded OS X back on 1/22/2002 is because Apple hasn't figured out
>how to update the system without a reboot... So that's only 3 reboots, all
>by choice, not crashes.
Now if they can just fix Classic so when a freaking installer forces you
to reboot after installing a classic app, it doesn't take down the whole
machine!
4 different installers did that to me. After installing in classic, it
forced me to reboot, and rather than just rebooting classic, it froze the
entire computer.
Of course, that brings up another pet peeve of mine... installers that
FORCE you to reboot after installing. Thanks, but I'll decide when it is
a good time to reboot, give me the option of rebooting then, or quitting
and doing it myself later.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
