Another nasty holiday season on RBT

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 7:50:23 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 3:43:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:

This is several pictures of the 1200 and 1600. All of the robotics,
electronics and programming was done by me. They changed the case
and shape several times later. So what? What does this tell you?


then the following questions shouldn't be too hard:

what was the programming language?

What compiler did you use?

Was it run from resident or removable media?

If resident, how was the file loaded into the resident device?

Was the program a state machine, or some aspect of real-time processing?

Then this should be easy to identify you. It was programmed in assembly language because C compilers were horribly inefficient in those days. Tell me where you got the idea that there was "removeable media" in those days. Do you envision a removable hard drive which would cost more than the entire electronics of that instrument then? Or maybe you think that they had thumb drives as you just discovered?

In your mind a "state machine" cannot be real time? Tell us all - when you have 5 axis of motion how do you propose running them without a real time kernel? By moving one axis at a time?

You have just identified yourself as a second rate student. Go back to class and try to learn something instead of making really stupid statements here.

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 7:56:16 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 12:17:41 AM UTC-5, news18 wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 09:11:19 -0800, Earls61 wrote:

“I seem to remember it as 1986 or so. It was the fist time an 8008 came
out.�

The 8008 was introduced in 1972.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8008

Maybe you’re thinking of the intel 386...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80386

They came out in the 80s.

Naah, the whole story reeks of a student project that was set on some
course the Tommie "audited", aka he failed,

IME, in the 70's they were still teaching you how to design your own
circuitry to pfovide logic from flip-flops, etc. shifting the project up
to something based on 8008 or 8080 might have been the decade later
shift. or a micro-controller course.

My guess is that he was actually an assembly technician, maybe ran some sort of production level programming tool (like something from the Data I/O family) to program EEproms (not quite was most of us think of when we say we programmed something).

Bascially we have here a guy that claims to have developed microcomputers for a major university, enhanced power delivery systems for a particle collide, and designed a telephone system for an office building, but couldn't figure out he had to lube his chain or the links would bind.

And my guess is that you're one of those engineers who I had to fire for incompetency. My step-son just became a company manager for an aerospace company. He quit Lockheed to take it. He didn't learn his work practices from his ne'er do well father.

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 8:00:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/21/2019 7:43 AM, news18 wrote:

As usual, Tommie suddenly gets all shy with real details of why a "chip"
could replace a task requiring a "supercomputer".


But he showed us a photograph and used the word "Peltier." Why, oh why,
aren't we suitably impressed? ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

I don't expect you to be impressed. I was never attempting to impress you. But you aren't bright enough to know that. Do you suppose I was trying to impress you when I related the story of the dolphins dancing on the bow waves of that racing yacht on the race down to Catalina? You are getting dementia and perhaps you should have that looked into.

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 11:23:30 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 7:50:23 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 3:43:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:

This is several pictures of the 1200 and 1600. All of the robotics,
electronics and programming was done by me. They changed the case
and shape several times later. So what? What does this tell you?


then the following questions shouldn't be too hard:

what was the programming language?

What compiler did you use?

Was it run from resident or removable media?

If resident, how was the file loaded into the resident device?

Was the program a state machine, or some aspect of real-time processing?

Then this should be easy to identify you. It was programmed in assembly
language because C compilers were horribly inefficient in those days.

Then you would know it wasn't the compilers that were inefficient, it was that machine language is way faster (and still is).

Tell me where you got the idea that there was "removeable media" in
those days.

Ever seen one of these?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk

They were invented in the 60's. in the 80's desk-top computers from Commodore, IBM, and compaq all used 5 1/4 inch drives to store the entire operating system until IBM invented BIOS. If you have some notion that removovable media didn't exist, it only goes to show your entire life is one big lie.

Do you envision a removable hard drive which would cost more than the
entire electronics of that instrument then? Or maybe you think that
they had thumb drives as you just discovered?

In your mind a "state machine" cannot be real time?

No, and if you had any clue about software architecture you'd know what I meant by state machine versus real-time processing.

Tell us all - when you have 5 axis of motion how do you propose running
them without a real time kernel? By moving one axis at a time?

IT depends on the application, but I can tell you you would be able to handle 5 simultaneous motor control tasks with one processor back then. Why don't you tell us how you handled simultaneous tasks with a processor that can only execute one line of code at a time? Newer processors can do it, but not back then.

You have just identified yourself as a second rate student. Go back to
class and try to learn something instead of making really stupid
statements here.

Right, by claiming an 8080 could multi-task? Or by claiming removable media didn't exist? Those weren't _my_ stupid statements.

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 11:26:42 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 7:56:16 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 12:17:41 AM UTC-5, news18 wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 09:11:19 -0800, Earls61 wrote:

“I seem to remember it as 1986 or so. It was the fist time an 8008 came
out.�

The 8008 was introduced in 1972.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8008

Maybe you’re thinking of the intel 386...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80386

They came out in the 80s.

Naah, the whole story reeks of a student project that was set on some
course the Tommie "audited", aka he failed,

IME, in the 70's they were still teaching you how to design your own
circuitry to pfovide logic from flip-flops, etc. shifting the project up
to something based on 8008 or 8080 might have been the decade later
shift. or a micro-controller course.

My guess is that he was actually an assembly technician, maybe ran some sort of production level programming tool (like something from the Data I/O family) to program EEproms (not quite was most of us think of when we say we programmed something).

Bascially we have here a guy that claims to have developed microcomputers for a major university, enhanced power delivery systems for a particle collide, and designed a telephone system for an office building, but couldn't figure out he had to lube his chain or the links would bind.

And my guess is that you're one of those engineers who I had to fire for incompetency.

The idea that anyone would give you a position of responsibility is one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

My step-son just became a company manager for an aerospace company.
He quit Lockheed to take it. He didn't learn his work practices from
his ne'er do well father.

And quite obviously not from his idiot step-father either.

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 11:23:30 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 7:50:23 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 3:43:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:

This is several pictures of the 1200 and 1600. All of the robotics,
electronics and programming was done by me. They changed the case
and shape several times later. So what? What does this tell you?


then the following questions shouldn't be too hard:

what was the programming language?

What compiler did you use?

Was it run from resident or removable media?

If resident, how was the file loaded into the resident device?

Was the program a state machine, or some aspect of real-time processing?

Then this should be easy to identify you. It was programmed in
assembly language because C compilers were horribly inefficient in
those days.

Then you would know it wasn't the compilers that were inefficient, they were limited by the language itself. It was that machine language was way faster (and still is depending on the application).

Tell me where you got the idea that there was "removeable media" in
those days.

Ever seen one of these?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk

They were invented in the 60's. in the 80's desk-top computers from Commodore, IBM, and compaq all used 5 1/4 inch drives to store the entire operating system until IBM invented BIOS. If you have some notion that removable media didn't exist, it only goes to show your entire life is one big lie.

Do you envision a removable hard drive which would cost more than the
entire electronics of that instrument then? Or maybe you think that
they had thumb drives as you just discovered?

In your mind a "state machine" cannot be real time?

No, and if you had any clue about software architecture you'd know what I meant by state machine versus real-time processing.

Tell us all - when you have 5 axis of motion how do you propose running
them without a real time kernel? By moving one axis at a time?

IT depends on the application, but I can tell you would not be able to handle 5 simultaneous motor control tasks with one processor back then. Why don't you tell us how you handled simultaneous tasks with a processor that can only execute one line of code at a time? Newer processors can do it, but not back then.

You have just identified yourself as a second rate student. Go back to
class and try to learn something instead of making really stupid
statements here.

Right, by claiming an 8080 could multi-task? Or by claiming removable media didn't exist? Those weren't _my_ stupid statements.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:43:44 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:51:02 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 05:05:38 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 14:38:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/20/2019 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 8:28:42 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/20/2019 10:23 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 1:51:09 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/19/2019 1:59 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 5:57:00 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 16:55:35 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-8, John B.
Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:02:29 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 5:31:41 PM UTC-8, John B.
Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:56:04 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 1:33:53 PM UTC-8,
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 8:42:52 PM UTC-8, Ralph
Barone wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 4:04:05 PM UTC-8,
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 7:25:47 AM UTC-8,
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 9:56:58 AM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 2:15:27 AM UTC-8,
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 5:06:44 AM UTC-5,
Andre Jute wrote:

-snip just oodles of text-


Sitting in a meeting with some of the world's best engineers and
chemists. the engineers said that making a chemical assay machine
required two IBM supercomputers. At the time these were $3
Million apiece. I said, "I can do it with a micro processor." I
delivered ahead of schedule and below budget so if you said,
"It's him or me"
you would have been shown the door immediately.
-final snip-

That would be around 1990 right? Sounds familiar.

My brother's medical research imaging lab building included a full
floor for a Cray with cooling systems. He changed the whole
department over to some mini processors in parallel which by then
outperformed a supercomputer for graphics rendering.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I seem to remember it as 1986 or so. It was the fist time an 8008
came out. Later I increased the size and power by using the 8080.
The IBM's were the most powerful available. Since De. Mullis didn't
have any money in his research grant for that he was stuck giving
me the project instead of the two PhD's. That didn't make them
exactly my friends and the moment I finished the final product I
was out the door.

I later got a job with another company and made a liquid handler
with 50 times the ability.

I'm not heavily into computer technology, but I bet there are people
here who would be very interested in exactly how you did the job of
two IBM supercomputers with an 8008 microprocessor. Or even an 8080.

Can you give us the technical details, please?

Lol, I'm not holding my breath that Tommie can produce such. I wonder
what broke with the 8008 machne that it had to be completey rebuilt with
an 8080.

I seem to remember that in order to run CP/M you needed to have an 8080.
Didn't they even make a 8080 card for the Apple II?

I don't know the full details of what chips went where in the 70s, but I
do know that by the time that he claims to have carried out this
wonderful project, I had two Z80 CP/M luggable computer, complete with
SIO, PIO and S100 bus that would have eaten his project with barely a
burp. These were Australian designed and built, and primarily aimed at
industral processes, so imagine what was available in the USA in the
early 80s.

In fact, if I could remember what my Fidonet details were, and there were
an archive of Rec.Bicycle.? , I might have even been poking my head in
there via these machines as they were my office machines for a few years
at that the time before we shelled out on a 80286.

As usual, Tommie suddenly gets all shy with real details of why a "chip"
could replace a task requiring a "supercomputer".

You reminded me. It wasn't a 8080 card for the Apple II it was a Z80
card.

When the company I worked for in Indonesia started using computers we
used Apple II's with the Z80 card in order to use WordStar.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:31:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 8:00:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/21/2019 7:43 AM, news18 wrote:

As usual, Tommie suddenly gets all shy with real details of why a "chip"
could replace a task requiring a "supercomputer".


But he showed us a photograph and used the word "Peltier." Why, oh why,
aren't we suitably impressed? ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

I don't expect you to be impressed. I was never attempting to impress you. But you aren't bright enough to know that. Do you suppose I was trying to impress you when I related the story of the dolphins dancing on the bow waves of that racing yacht on the race down to Catalina? You are getting dementia and perhaps you should have that looked into.


"I was never attempting to impress you"?

Surely you lie. After all your post was a blatant attempt to convince
the reader that you really are Tommy the Tiger, a great man who did
many grand and wondrous things.

(It is called "over compensation" and is a common trait of those who
lack self-esteem)

--

Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 5:47:56 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:31:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 8:00:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/21/2019 7:43 AM, news18 wrote:

As usual, Tommie suddenly gets all shy with real details of why a "chip"
could replace a task requiring a "supercomputer".


But he showed us a photograph and used the word "Peltier." Why, oh why,
aren't we suitably impressed? ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

I don't expect you to be impressed. I was never attempting to impress you. But you aren't bright enough to know that. Do you suppose I was trying to impress you when I related the story of the dolphins dancing on the bow waves of that racing yacht on the race down to Catalina? You are getting dementia and perhaps you should have that looked into.


"I was never attempting to impress you"?

Surely you lie. After all your post was a blatant attempt to convince
the reader that you really are Tommy the Tiger, a great man who did
many grand and wondrous things.

(It is called "over compensation" and is a common trait of those who
lack self-esteem)


It's a classic combination of walter mitty and Dunning–Kruger

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:23:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 7:50:23 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 3:43:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:

This is several pictures of the 1200 and 1600. All of the robotics,
electronics and programming was done by me. They changed the case
and shape several times later. So what? What does this tell you?


then the following questions shouldn't be too hard:

what was the programming language?

What compiler did you use?

Was it run from resident or removable media?

If resident, how was the file loaded into the resident device?

Was the program a state machine, or some aspect of real-time processing?

Then this should be easy to identify you. It was programmed in assembly language because C compilers were horribly inefficient in those days. Tell me where you got the idea that there was "removeable media" in those days. Do you envision a removable hard drive which would cost more than the entire electronics of that instrument then? Or maybe you think that they had thumb drives as you just discovered?

In your mind a "state machine" cannot be real time? Tell us all - when you have 5 axis of motion how do you propose running them without a real time kernel? By moving one axis at a time?

You have just identified yourself as a second rate student. Go back to class and try to learn something instead of making really stupid statements here.

"making really stupid statements here"? Surely a case of the pot
calling the kettle black, coming from perhaps the individual that
expounds the most grandiose tales on the Web.
--

Cheers,

John B.