[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Poopie Stevenson aka Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes

LIAR !

Prove it, Poopie.

No need.

There were no personal tube based computers ever built.

Graham

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 5, 2:47*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Poopie Stevenson aka *Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes

LIAR !

Prove it, Poopie.

No need.

There were no personal tube based computers ever built.

Who said it was a personal computer, dickhead?

Graham

Jesus, what a moron.

Andre Jute
Trying hard to patient

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes

LIAR !

Prove it, Poopie.

No need.

There were no personal tube based computers ever built.

Who said it was a personal computer, dickhead?

In that case **YOU** didn't have a computer of your own. Your EMPLOYER had
one, MORON.

Graham

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 5, 3:02*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore *wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes

LIAR !

Prove it, Poopie.

No need.

There were no personal tube based computers ever built.

Who said it was a personal computer, dickhead?

In that case **YOU** didn't have a computer of your own. Your EMPLOYER had
one, MORON.

Graham

You're screeching like a fishwife, Poopie. I know the facts and you
don't. The facts will not change because you shout. You made a dumb
accusation before you ascertained the facts, and now you're screeching
to try and cover up your stupidity.

The was no employer, or even an "EMPLOYER" as you insist on shouting.
I was a student at the time. I used the computer for flow simulations
in the heads of my Chrysler racing engines. Both facts are true but
one is also a red herring to lead you around by the nose, dear Poopie.

Your turn, Poopie. Make a fool of yourself some more. Go for it,
Poopster!

Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of inducing apoplexy in undesirables by merely
existing elegantly

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Poopie Stevenson aka Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes

LIAR !

Prove it, Poopie.

No need.

There were no personal tube based computers ever built.

Heathkit offered a tube based computer kit sometime in the late 1950s,
early 1960s time frame, which could have been bought and used as a
personal computer.

As far as Andre's computer goes, he has talked about it here before, so
I know his was not a Heathkit.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 5, 4:16*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,

*Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Poopie Stevenson aka *Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes

LIAR !

Prove it, Poopie.

No need.

There were no personal tube based computers ever built.

Heathkit offered a tube based computer kit sometime in the late 1950s,
early 1960s time frame, which could have been bought and used as a
personal computer.

They did? This is entirely news to me, John. I thought the Olivetti
Programma 101 was the first desktop computer worthy of the name. (Of
course, it could do more, faster than the big tube jobs, but it was
still by today's standards pitifully slow and limited.)

As far as Andre's computer goes, he has talked about it here before, so
I know his was not a Heathkit.

Not by a long chalk! My first computer took up most of the basement of
the university's administration block, required a controlled
environment and round the clock white-coat attendance, and had less
capability than the Citizen Navihawk watch on my wrist.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...%20NoBleed.jpg
It's quite likely that the autoranging meter I built, behind the
watch, has more logic in it than those first commercial computers had.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/

Andre Jute
Ur-nerd before nerd was even a word

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...%20NoBleed.jpg

Hah !

For all your talk, you can't even afford a decent meter.

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 8:24 am, "Iain Churches" wrote:

With careful work,
it is possible to build an amplifier which is dead silent even with
your ear against the speaker.
Aren't they all supposed to be that way
Indeed they are "supposed" to be.
Iain

PS I recently saw an "English language manual" for a
Chinese amp. It was a single sheet of folded A4)
At the bottom of the page it said:

"There may be some, but not considerable humble from the
loodspeaker".

There was indeed "considerable humble from the loodspeaker"
at both 50 and 100Hz.

Iain

I have often wondered if there isn't a lucrative business in there
somewhere, translating pidgin' English into 'proper' English. Even big
companies are as bad - I recently bought an ASUS EEEPC (Taiwanese) and the
Engrish in their manual is at times appalling. I guess you could
sell it to them on the basis of saving face??


In my recent hunt for VU meters, I found a Taiwanese company, which,
at first glance, seemed to be able to provide what I was looking for.
They were very friendly, as I was assigned my own contact to deal
personally with my enquiries. She sent me some rather vague literature
about the meters (nothing concerning their ballistics - just how many
type faces the could offer for silk-screening the client's own logo!)

The "Engrish" was appalling, so I made the corrections, and a few
changes in style and returned it. My personal contact wrote back
by return: "Many franks"

But there certainly does seem to be a lucrative business repairing
Chinese tube/valve amplfiers, many of which seem to fail within
months of purchase. The faults, like the circuitry, are fairly simple.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"keithr" wrote in message
...

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 10:31 am, "keithr" wrote:

ti.fi...



"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

Andre Jute wrote:

The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress

There is an excellent programme called sPlan available
at very low cost. It even has a tube/valve library.
You can download a demo version from

http://www.abacom-online.de/uk/html/demoversionen.html

Iain

Useless to Andre, it has no pose value.

You're an idiot, Keith. If I wanted to pose, i'd list the names of the
CAD programmes for the MicroShoddy OS that I own and have mastered.
Instead I say modestly that I use a programme from one of my
professions because I am perfectly at ease with it on my Mac, and you
conclude it is a pose. Don't give up your day job to become a
psychologist, sonny; you'll never make even the first cut.

The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use
a computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the
leading CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the
best software doesn't)

In my profession, classical music recording and editing, the
Mac is used almost exclusively as a graphics front end for
the sequencer on large format digital audio editors, and
has been the choice of professionals for man many years.
One of the many advantages is speed. A Mac compatible
editor has multiple processors, and multi tasking which
allows it to carry out tasks in real time which the PC is very
slow to perform. When hooked up with a broad band Internet
connection for downloading .wav files from clients the Mac
needs no virus protection which drags PCs to a crawl.

I notice too that graphic designers who work on CD and LP
covers and inlay cards seem to use mainly Macintosh.

Smart people:-)

Iain

[Patrick Turner]

Eeyore wrote:

robert casey wrote:

Avoiding ground loop issues you need to understand the paths the
currents thru such a ground are taking. And remember that all real
conductors have resistance, and that "noise" voltages will develop
across those current paths. Using dedicated wires for each current path
avoids this. That's what you do in a star ground system. One important
current path is the one in the power supply. From the center-tap of the
high voltage secondary to the filter cap is a high current spike every
120th of a second.

100th of a second in most of the world actually.

SO to keep that out of the rest of the amp, you
connect the secondary center-tap directly to the negative side of the
filter caps, and then what becomes the B- (at the filter cap negative)
then becomes a wire leading to the star ground. I've connected my
output stage cathode resistors to this B- point, and then use the star
ground for low current low signal level work.

Spot on and well explained.

He's right, and the reason is that the current spikes from diode
switching and charge pulses
are not flowing in the OV wire between the -ve bottom of the reservoir
cap and the star point or buss
near the input.

If one uses a CRC or CLC type of supply, the same applies, with two caps
-ve brought together to the
0V rail to which the cathode circuit MUST be connected to avoid signal
currents causing any
voltage developed in the 0V wiring.

Keep 0V wiring to the star point or other "referencing 0V wires" or NFB
wiring
away from the underside of any magnetic component such as PT, OPT, or
chokes because induced
voltages are quite likely to spoil the noise performance.

The CRO should have difficulty displaying the amp noise at the output.
If there is lots of medium F junk noise or RF,
temporarily bypass the output with 0.47F, and this should reduce the HF
blurry
junk on the CRO, and leave the 50Hz and related harmonics and spikes
better able to be seen.

Ground the input grid to 0V during noise testing.

Turn up gain controls if any to -6dB, their noisiest position.

After any wiring changes and adjustments of wire positions, watch the
CRO and the noise changes.

Make sure the CRO is itself grounded to the amps 0V rail and that
when you probe the 0V rail no noise appears.
Its no use blaming an amp when your test methods are crap.

Consider yourself WRONG until you proove otherwise to yourself.

Patrick Turner.


And Andre Jute wonders why I criticised his 'design by rote' post !

Graham

[Patrick Turner]

Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Awfully suspicious that the original of the article cannot be found, what?

What the HELL are you drivelling on about ?

Graham

We were all hoping you knew, Poopie, since you're such bumbuddies with
Porno Pas.

Can it with the nasty personal abuse will you ?

What we want to know is how come this fellow can't find his
own article on the net if he didn't withdraw it when Bell Northern
fired him for it?

Why would anyone be fired for an article on audio grounding that's entirely
uncontentious ? Where's your proof any such thing happened ?

You really are one ignorant old embittered fool.

Above you ask someone to lay off with the tirade of rotten cabages.
But you finish your post by hurling a couple of lettuces well beyond
their
use by date.....

Bicker bicker boring boring...

Patrick Turner.

Graham

[Patrick Turner]

Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Frankly, Patrick, my opinion after nearly twenty years in DIY tube
audio is that, were you and I to collaborate on a book on grounding,
ti would uneconomically thick, it would still be incomplete

POMPOUS **** !

**** off out of here, preferably with your tail between your legs.

But how thick would a book you and I composed about tube craft ever be?

I have already a fair contribution at my website, what's yours?

Andre exagerates a bit, not a worry, but I presently don't have the time
for teaching applied basic electronic theory.

People are supposed to work it out themselves, right, OK.

If anyone builds something electronic, they will have to deal with
noise.

So deal with it people, please, learn, question, and apply the learning!

Its impossible to state every anti noise solution for all apps in all
amplifiers at this news group.

Patrick Turner

Graham

[keithr]

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...



The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to
use a
computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the
leading
CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best
software doesn't)

Pardon?

Try buying AutoCAD for the mac. There obviously are other CAD programs for
the mac, but AutoCAD is the standard for professional users.

The Mac is used by people who appreciate a simple interface, and don't
wish
to spend $$, CPU cycles, and grief fending off viruses and other attacks.

Preference should not be confused with arrogance.

The problem with Mac users is their air of superiority. The interface is no
simpler than windows (except that the mouse only has one button). I have
spent zilch on anti-virus software and have never had a virus infection. As
for other attacks, a standard ADSL router will fix that, or you can turn the
windows firewall (free with the operating system) on.

Sure, there are packages not designed for Macs -- there is a particular
shortage of decent accounting programs, for example -- but if an owner of
a
current Mac wishes to do so, he can install a virtual Windows machine and
run Mac, Windows, & a flavor of Linux or Unix. In other words, just about
anything.

I don't know the figures, but windows would have many times the amount of
"Useful" software than either the Mac or Linux. Unix is in it's death
throes (a couple of years ago my employer had a hundred or so developers
beavering away SUN workstations using Unix, now they all use Linux on PCs)

Can a Windows box match that? No that I know of.

Jon

I have a virtual Linux machine on my windows machine, I could run Unix under
that virtual machine, but there really is no point in doing so with Linux
already there. I don't think that there is any provision to run OS/X,
probably because of a lack of demand. Basically Apple ripped off BSD Unix
and stuck a pretty interface over it to hide the nasty command line
interface of the original (Apple people wouldn't like that).

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 4, 1:37 am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:13 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:
I am not really in what is considered to be the
"professional" audio industry, one which is infested with amateurs and
cowboys who make crap that I sometimes have to modify and re-engineer or repair
to high standards of tradesmanship and craftmanship to stop noise and smoke
from their ****ing "professional" efforts.

And who the hell are these 'professionals' you refer to ?

The standards in pro-audio are normally first class.

Huh? Are you an example of what you consider a "professional in pro-
audio", Poopie? If you are, the standards must be deplorably low.

"Professional audio" standards are definately high in general.

I wouldn't know what everyday standards are; I have elite gear, made
by the Walkers and by Lowther and by myself.

But I wasn't talking of the standard of the gear. I was talking about
the appallingly low standards of the people we run into on RAT who
tell us they are "professional electronics engineers" or "professional
audio engineers". Idiots who behave like Porno Pasternack, Poopie
Stevenson, Zero-delivery Pinkerton, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger,
Don Pearce, John Mayberry, and so on, are not professionals, they're
clowns.

Andre Jute
Such very modest standards, and still they disappoint!


I would waste too much time and break too many swords if I charged
at all the un-professional windmills that abound
across the landscape.

None of them would ever get the message and do something positive about
the appalling
shortcomings of their designs.
I ain't talking about the small fry here but about major brandnames.

The few ppl here claiming to be professionals don't bother me very much,
and when would I ever get a chance to sample their wares?

I am a mere tradesman, and don't likie being called professional,
because that lumps me in with a rather despicable lot of people
who do swan about crowing like roosters about their professionalism.

I've always tried to be a good tradesman.

Its all I can really do, take it or leave it.

Patrick Turner.



But the way many makers actually ensure their gear can comply with these
standards
over a long time to justify the cost of such gear's prices is often
quite appalling,
and entirely the connivance of non professional minds.

For example, studios once might have used the
"fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps.
Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using
them.
Lotsa reasons why.

I wouldn't touch on of these ****ing horrors with a 40 foot pole!!!

Look, and Ye shall see Crap Abundant about thee.

Patrick Turner.



Graham

And doesn't Krueger call him self a "professional" of audio too? LOL.

Unsigned out of contempt for a smoke blower

[keithr]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 10:39 pm, "keithr" wrote:


The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress

There is an excellent programme called sPlan available
at very low cost. It even has a tube/valve library.
You can download a demo version from

http://www.abacom-online.de/uk/html/demoversionen.html

Iain

Useless to Andre, it has no pose value.

You're an idiot, Keith. If I wanted to pose, i'd list the names of the
CAD programmes for the MicroShoddy OS that I own and have mastered.
Instead I say modestly that I use a programme from one of my
professions because I am perfectly at ease with it on my Mac, and you
conclude it is a pose. Don't give up your day job to become a
psychologist, sonny; you'll never make even the first cut.

The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses

I'm not a snob. I'm talking to you, as everyone can see, including you
when you wipe the **** from your eyes.



ROFL Jooty baby isn't a snob!!!!!

You're the guy who never fails to make big of this possessions, always the
very best

or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a
computer.

Ugh. I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes and lived
humidity-controlled lives behind air locks. At the time you could
write to all the computer owners in the world because there was a list
of them and it was only a few hundred names.



Really, tubed computer went out of use in the late 50's, our college was
donated one in 1959, and we just used it for parts. Since your bio states
that you were born in 1947, that would make you about 13 when those
dinosaurs went to their grave so what were you a super rich boy genius?

Besides being an ignoramus, you're an idiot, Keith. You haven't asked
the key question: When did I start using a Mac"

As a typographer, what people like you call a graphic designer, I
started with Macs before the Mac (first there was the Lisa) because
the OS Apple took over from Xerox PARC was the only one which
communicated directly with the reprographics machines I needed to do
film separations for colour printing. Do you actually know how
recently Windoze machines caught on to Postscript? Don't bother
telling me; I already know you don't know, or you wouldn't make these
stupid remarks.



People like me call a typographer a typographer; unfortunately the world is
full of second rate graphics designers who call themselves typographers. I
suppose they can screw the clients for a little more money that way.



Windows has supported Postscript for long enough for it not to be an issue.
Even Adobe who were one of the ones that really got the graphics design
crowd Mac crazy develop for windows first these days, then port to the Mac.

So I'm in Macs because they did something right in the beginning, and
that is as good as reason as any to remain loyal to them despite the
mouth-foaming of little cheapskates like you. In addition, I'm rather
particular about the ergonomics of anything I use, and Bill Gates and
his krowd of krude klowns cannot even spell ergonomics; the Apple OS,
plus Apple physical unit design, are pretty compelling reasons to
stick with what works.



What has ergonomics got to do with the operating system interface? If you
want ergonomics, you buy yourself a good chair and desk, a large clear
monitor, a good keyboard and your choice of pointing device. You then adjust
them to suit your own personal needs. I make my living sitting at my windows
machine each day, and I have no problem at all with it's ergonomics. Apple
stuff looks pretty but thats about it, I can go out and take my choice of
literally thousands of options for interface devices, with Apple you get
what you get.

Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading
CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best
software doesn't)

Even if true, which it isn't, why should that either influence or
bother me? All the software I want runs on a Mac (I actually have
Windows operating on my Mac but very, very rarely want to use the
clumsy programmes written for it -- I just have it load at startup so
that if, God forbid, I should want it, I don't have to sit around
twiddling my thumbs forever while Windows checks the ur-code left over
by MS-DOS that those incompetent programmers in Redmond didn't
remove). I can draw better schematics in the Mac software I like than
most CAD programmes under any OS can draw. See, sonny, it is about my
rather valuable time, not about what some little IT fashion victim
like you or Poopie has heard on some low-rent street corner.



since Mac OS is really just BSD Unix with a pretty interface to hide all the
nasty stuff underneath, you really aren't arguing from a position of
strength

Andre Jute
Truly tired of fools coming to RAT to throw themselves against my
ankles

In my life, I have met quite a few people who were up themselves, but you
would be the first who was up himself so far that he has turned himself
into
a Klein bottle

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're another little nobody who thinks that tearing
down other people's achievements will stretch his quarter-inch dick.
Let us know if you feel a twinge and we'll make you famous, or at
least notorious.



Unlike you jooty baby, I don't feel the need to feed my ego constantly, let's
face it your only proven achievements are writing a few books, designing a
few audio amps (audio amps do not rate very high on the scale of difficulty
of electronic design) and becoming a very good Usenet troll. There isn't
really very much to tear down.

Yawn.

Are we don yet?



That depends who Don is

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

In my life, I have met quite a few people who were up themselves, but you
would be the first who was up himself so far that he has turned himself into
a Klein bottle - point proven



Keith



Pricking the ego of the pompous is great fun except for the odour of the
escaping gas

[keithr]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

"keithr" wrote in message
...

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 10:31 am, "keithr" wrote:

ti.fi...



"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

Andre Jute wrote:

The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress

There is an excellent programme called sPlan available
at very low cost. It even has a tube/valve library.
You can download a demo version from

http://www.abacom-online.de/uk/html/demoversionen.html

Iain

Useless to Andre, it has no pose value.

You're an idiot, Keith. If I wanted to pose, i'd list the names of the
CAD programmes for the MicroShoddy OS that I own and have mastered.
Instead I say modestly that I use a programme from one of my
professions because I am perfectly at ease with it on my Mac, and you
conclude it is a pose. Don't give up your day job to become a
psychologist, sonny; you'll never make even the first cut.

The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to
use
a computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the
leading CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the
best software doesn't)

In my profession, classical music recording and editing, the
Mac is used almost exclusively as a graphics front end for
the sequencer on large format digital audio editors, and
has been the choice of professionals for man many years.
One of the many advantages is speed. A Mac compatible
editor has multiple processors, and multi tasking which
allows it to carry out tasks in real time which the PC is very
slow to perform. When hooked up with a broad band Internet
connection for downloading .wav files from clients the Mac
needs no virus protection which drags PCs to a crawl.

I notice too that graphic designers who work on CD and LP
covers and inlay cards seem to use mainly Macintosh.

Smart people:-)

Iain

The multitasking thing is of the long past. Windows from NT onward is as
good at task switching as any other OS. The Mac enjoyed a time where
multi-core processors were available to them but not to the PC. These days
the Mac hardwarewise is just another PC. You can run quad core 64 bit
processors under windows these days. Of course, people are set in their
ways, and I am sure that the recording industry will continue to use Macs
for a long time to come out of sheer intertia.

Keith

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , keithr at
wrote on 3/5/08 6:41 AM:


"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...



The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to
use a
computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the
leading
CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best
software doesn't)

Pardon?

Try buying AutoCAD for the mac. There obviously are other CAD programs for
the mac, but AutoCAD is the standard for professional users.

*** You seem to be stuck. I don't disagree with that. I did point out you
can still run AutoCAD on some Macs.

The Mac is used by people who appreciate a simple interface, and don't
wish
to spend $$, CPU cycles, and grief fending off viruses and other attacks.

Preference should not be confused with arrogance.

The problem with Mac users is their air of superiority.

*** IMHO, the Mac is generally superior to a Windows PC in terms of ease of
use, design, ergonomics, etc. What others may feel about owning a Mac -- or
not -- is not a concern of mine. In other words, I think Macs in general ae
better machines but I don't feel like a "better" person because I prefer
one.

*** What, Windows inferiority complex???

The interface is no
simpler than windows (except that the mouse only has one button). I have
spent zilch on anti-virus software and have never had a virus infection.

*** I hope "not spending zilch" means that you have downloaded the free
stuff, and not that you are unprotected. I see a lot of PCs and most of
them have some kind of virus. Apparently, you are luckier or smarter than
most.

As
for other attacks, a standard ADSL router will fix that, or you can turn the
windows firewall (free with the operating system) on.

*** correct, except for malware that rides on e-mails, attachments, and
other people's data.

Sure, there are packages not designed for Macs -- there is a particular
shortage of decent accounting programs, for example -- but if an owner of
a
current Mac wishes to do so, he can install a virtual Windows machine and
run Mac, Windows, & a flavor of Linux or Unix. In other words, just about
anything.

I don't know the figures, but windows would have many times the amount of
"Useful" software than either the Mac or Linux. Unix is in it's death
throes (a couple of years ago my employer had a hundred or so developers
beavering away SUN workstations using Unix, now they all use Linux on PCs)

*** If the current Mac can run all of these "useful" Windows programs, what
is your point?

Can a Windows box match that? No that I know of.

Jon

I have a virtual Linux machine on my windows machine, I could run Unix under
that virtual machine, but there really is no point in doing so with Linux
already there. I don't think that there is any provision to run OS/X,
probably because of a lack of demand. Basically Apple ripped off BSD Unix
and stuck a pretty interface over it to hide the nasty command line
interface of the original (Apple people wouldn't like that).

*** Basically, Bill Gates et. all ripped of CPM and etc. etc.

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 5, 11:12*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Frankly, Patrick, my opinion after nearly twenty years in DIY tube
audio is that, were you and I to collaborate on a book on grounding,
ti would uneconomically thick, it would still be incomplete

POMPOUS **** !

**** off out of here, preferably with your tail between your legs.

But how thick would a book you and I composed about tube craft ever be?

A book Poopie contributes to be would be awfully onesided and as thick
as the other author makes it by himself. A book by Poopie alone would
be almost as long as the list of Italian war heroes. LOL.

Poopie was born a soundbiter and he'll die a soundbiter.

I have already a fair contribution at my website, what's yours?

Now that's cruel to poor Poopie. He could spend the rest of this year
making a netsite and at the end of the year he will have one page that
says "Poopie Stevenson. Duh. Short attention span. Duh."

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Andre exagerates a bit, not a worry, but I presently don't have the time
for teaching applied basic electronic theory.

People are supposed to work it out themselves, right, OK.

If anyone builds something electronic, they will have to deal with
noise.

So deal with it people, please, learn, question, and apply the learning!

Its impossible to state every anti noise solution for all apps in all
amplifiers at this news group.

Patrick Turner



Graham

[Andre Jute]

Mac users earned their air of superiority by their good judgement in
choosing a computer that was all there and complete, which now the
Windows OS copies badly. Why switch to an also-ran copy-cat product
like Windows, whose makers clearly don't understand that the user is
more important than the programmer? Mac users earn their continuing
air of superiority by using the original and best, not the cheap copy
made for the undiscriminating.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent of inducing apoplexy in losers by merely
existing

On Mar 5, 11:41*am, "keithr" wrote:
"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message

...



The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to
use a
computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the
leading
CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best
software doesn't)

Pardon?

Try buying AutoCAD for the mac. There obviously are other CAD programs for
the mac, but AutoCAD is the standard for professional users.



The Mac is used by people who appreciate a simple interface, and don't
wish
to spend $$, CPU cycles, and grief fending off viruses and other attacks..

Preference should not be confused with arrogance.

The problem with Mac users is their air of superiority. The interface is no
simpler than windows (except that the mouse only has one button). I have
spent zilch on anti-virus software and have never had a virus infection. As
for other attacks, a standard ADSL router will fix that, or you can turn the
windows firewall (free with the operating system) on.



Sure, there are packages not designed for Macs -- there is a particular
shortage of decent accounting programs, for example -- but if an owner of
a
current Mac wishes to do so, he can install a virtual Windows machine and
run Mac, Windows, & a flavor of Linux or Unix. *In other words, just about
anything.

I don't know the figures, but windows would have many times the amount of
"Useful" software than either the Mac or Linux. *Unix is in it's death
throes (a couple of years ago my employer had a hundred or so developers
beavering away SUN workstations using Unix, now they all use Linux on PCs)

Can a Windows box match that? *No that I know of.

Jon

I have a virtual Linux machine on my windows machine, I could run Unix under
that virtual machine, but there really is no point in doing so with Linux
already there. I don't think that there is any provision to run OS/X,
probably because of a lack of demand. Basically Apple ripped off BSD Unix
and stuck a pretty interface over it to hide the nasty command line
interface of the original (Apple people wouldn't like that).

[Andre Jute]

Patrick Turner wrote:

I am a mere tradesman, and don't likie being called professional,
because that lumps me in with a rather despicable lot of people
who do swan about crowing like roosters about their professionalism.

I have no problem with being known as a professional. But the most
difficult thing to persuade an aspirant writer of is that, long before
he can be a professional, who is merely someone who earns his living
at a particular trade or profession, he must first be a meticulous
craftsman.

Andre Jute
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. --H.H.Munro
("Saki")(1870-1916)

Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review


On Mar 5, 12:13*pm, Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 4, 1:37 am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:13 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:
I am not really in what is considered to be the
"professional" audio industry, one which is infested with amateurs and
cowboys who make crap that I sometimes have to modify and re-engineer or repair
to high standards of tradesmanship and craftmanship to stop noise and smoke
from their ****ing "professional" efforts.

And who the hell are these 'professionals' you refer to ?

The standards in pro-audio are normally first class.

Huh? Are you an example of what you consider a "professional in pro-
audio", Poopie? If you are, the standards must be deplorably low.

"Professional audio" standards are definately high in general.

I wouldn't know what everyday standards are; I have elite gear, made
by the Walkers and by Lowther and by myself.

But I wasn't talking of the standard of the gear. I was talking about
the appallingly low standards of the people we run into on RAT who
tell us they are "professional electronics engineers" or "professional
audio engineers". Idiots who behave like Porno Pasternack, Poopie
Stevenson, Zero-delivery Pinkerton, Arny "I spoke in error" Krueger,
Don Pearce, John Mayberry, and so on, are not professionals, they're
clowns.

Andre Jute
Such very modest standards, and still they disappoint!

I would waste too much time and break too many swords if I charged
at all the un-professional windmills that abound
across the landscape.

None of them would ever get the message and do something positive about
the appalling
shortcomings of their designs.
I ain't talking about the small fry here but about major brandnames.

The few ppl here claiming to be professionals don't bother me very much,
and when would I ever get a chance to sample their wares?

I am a mere tradesman, and don't likie being called professional,
because that lumps me in with a rather despicable lot of people
who do swan about crowing like roosters about their professionalism.

I've always tried to be a good tradesman.

Its all I can really do, take it or leave it.

Patrick Turner.



But the way many makers actually ensure their gear can comply with these
standards
over a long time to justify the cost of such gear's prices is often
quite appalling,
and entirely the connivance of non professional minds.

For example, studios once might have used the
"fabulous" EAR509 amps for their monitor amps.
Anyone who did when these awful amps were made will not still be using
them.
Lotsa reasons why.

I wouldn't touch on of these ****ing horrors with a 40 foot pole!!!

Look, and Ye shall see Crap Abundant about thee.

Patrick Turner.

Graham

And doesn't Krueger call him self a "professional" of audio too? LOL..

Unsigned out of contempt for a smoke blower

[Andre Jute]

Tell us, Keith, now that you've failed to persuade anyone on RAT of
anything by abuse, will you be telling us what qualities you to creep
into RAT and start abusing people going about their hobby?

Are you about to stun us with a new tube amp design that we have never
seen before? You do know this a tube hobby group, don't you?

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco


On Mar 5, 12:27*pm, "keithr" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...
On Mar 4, 10:39 pm, "keithr" wrote:





The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress

There is an excellent programme called sPlan available
at very low cost. It even has a tube/valve library.
You can download a demo version from

http://www.abacom-online.de/uk/html/demoversionen.html

Iain

Useless to Andre, it has no pose value.

You're an idiot, Keith. If I wanted to pose, i'd list the names of the
CAD programmes for the MicroShoddy OS that I own and have mastered.
Instead I say modestly that I use a programme from one of my
professions because I am perfectly at ease with it on my Mac, and you
conclude it is a pose. Don't give up your day job to become a
psychologist, sonny; you'll never make even the first cut.

The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses
I'm not a snob. I'm talking to you, as everyone can see, including you
when you wipe the **** from your eyes.

ROFL Jooty baby isn't a snob!!!!!

You're the guy who never fails to make big of this possessions, always the
very best

or people unable or unwilling to learn how to use a
computer.
Ugh. I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes and lived
humidity-controlled lives behind air locks. At the time you could
write to all the computer owners in the world because there was a list
of them and it was only a few hundred names.

Really, tubed computer went out of use in the late 50's, our college was
donated one in 1959, and we just used it for parts. Since your bio states
that you were born in 1947, that would make you about 13 when those
dinosaurs went to their grave so what were you a super rich boy genius?

Besides being an ignoramus, you're an idiot, Keith. You haven't asked
the key question: When did I start using a Mac"

As a typographer, what people like you call a graphic designer, I
started with Macs before the Mac (first there was the Lisa) because
the OS Apple took over from Xerox PARC was the only one which

*communicated directly with the reprographics machines I needed to do

film separations for colour printing. Do you actually know how
recently Windoze machines caught on to Postscript? Don't bother
telling me; I already know you don't know, or you wouldn't make these
stupid remarks.

People like me call a typographer a typographer; unfortunately the world is
full of second rate graphics designers who call themselves typographers. I
suppose they can screw the clients for a little more money that way.

Windows has supported Postscript for long enough for it not to be an issue..
Even Adobe who were one of the ones that really got the graphics design
crowd *Mac crazy develop for windows first these days, then port to the Mac.

So I'm in Macs because they did something right in the beginning, and
that is as good as reason as any to remain loyal to them despite the
mouth-foaming of little cheapskates like you. In addition, I'm rather
particular about the ergonomics of anything I use, and Bill Gates and
his krowd of krude klowns cannot even spell ergonomics; the Apple OS,
plus Apple physical unit design, are pretty compelling reasons to
stick with what works.

What has ergonomics got to do with the operating system interface? If you
want ergonomics, you buy yourself a good chair and desk, a large clear
monitor, a good keyboard and your choice of pointing device. You then adjust
them to suit your own personal needs. I make my living sitting at my windows
machine each day, and I have no problem at all with it's ergonomics. Apple
stuff looks pretty but thats about it, I can go out and take my choice of
literally thousands of options for interface devices, with Apple you get
what you get.

Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the leading
CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best
software doesn't)
Even if true, which it isn't, *why should that either influence or
bother me? All the software I want runs on a Mac (I actually have
Windows operating on my Mac but very, very rarely want to use the
clumsy programmes written for it -- I just have it load at startup so
that if, God forbid, I should want it, *I don't have to sit around
twiddling my thumbs forever while Windows checks the ur-code left over
by MS-DOS that those incompetent programmers in Redmond didn't
remove). I can draw better schematics in the Mac software I like than
most CAD programmes under any OS can draw. See, sonny, it is about my
rather valuable time, not about what some little IT fashion victim
like you or Poopie has heard on some low-rent street corner.

since Mac OS is really just BSD Unix with a pretty interface to hide all the
nasty stuff underneath, you really aren't arguing from a position of
strength

Andre Jute
Truly tired of fools coming to RAT to throw themselves against my
ankles

In my life, I have met quite a few people who were up themselves, but you
would be the first who was up himself so far that he has turned himself
into
a Klein bottle
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're another little nobody who thinks that tearing
down other people's achievements will stretch his quarter-inch dick.
Let us know if you feel a twinge and we'll make you famous, or at
least notorious.

Unlike you jooty baby, I don't feel the need to feed my ego constantly, let's
face it your only proven achievements are writing a few books, designing a
few audio amps (audio amps do not rate very high on the scale of difficulty
of electronic design) and becoming a very good Usenet troll. There isn't
really very much to tear down.

Yawn.
Are we don yet?

That depends who Don is

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? *The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

In my life, I have met quite a few people who were up themselves, but you
would be the first who was up himself so far that he has turned himself into
a Klein bottle - *point proven

Keith

Pricking the ego of the pompous is great fun except for the odour of the
escaping gas

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 5, 12:41*pm, "keithr" wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

ti.fi...



"keithr" wrote in message
...

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 10:31 am, "keithr" wrote:

alahti.fi...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

Andre Jute wrote:

The programme I use for schematics is QuarkXPress

There is an excellent programme called sPlan available
at very low cost. It even has a tube/valve library.
You can download a demo version from

http://www.abacom-online.de/uk/html/demoversionen.html

Iain

Useless to Andre, it has no pose value.

You're an idiot, Keith. If I wanted to pose, i'd list the names of the
CAD programmes for the MicroShoddy OS that I own and have mastered.
Instead I say modestly that I use a programme from one of my
professions because I am perfectly at ease with it on my Mac, and you
conclude it is a pose. Don't give up your day job to become a
psychologist, sonny; you'll never make even the first cut.

The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to
use
a computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the
leading CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the
best software doesn't)

In my profession, classical music recording and editing, the
Mac is used almost exclusively as a graphics front end for
the sequencer on *large format digital audio editors, and
has been the choice of professionals for man many years.
One of the many advantages is speed. A Mac compatible
editor has multiple processors, and multi tasking which
allows it to carry out tasks in real time which the PC is very
slow to perform. When hooked up with a broad band Internet
connection for downloading .wav files from clients the Mac
needs no virus protection which drags PCs to a crawl.

I notice too that graphic designers who work on CD and LP
covers and inlay cards seem to use mainly Macintosh.

Smart people:-)

Iain

The multitasking thing is of the long past. Windows from NT onward is as
good at task switching as any other OS. The Mac enjoyed a time where
multi-core processors were available to them but not to the PC. These days
the Mac hardwarewise is just another PC. You can run quad core 64 bit
processors under windows these days. Of course, people are set in their
ways, and I am sure that the recording industry will continue to use Macs
for a long time to come out of sheer intertia.

Keith

You're never going to understand, Keith. People use Windoze because
they *have* to, because they have no choice in the workplace, or they
don't have the money for a Mac. People *choose* the Mac because it
improves their lives and their work. For people who can afford a Mac,
there is no reason to buy some other cardboard cut-out computer that
mimics the Mac's interface without the deep understanding of what it
is all about.

People who use Windoze computers think the computer comes first.
People who use Macs think people come first.

It is a difference of principle which you will never see as long as
you bleat about how a cheap copycat is as good as the real thing.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 5, 6:27*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...%20NoBleed.jpg

Hah !

For all your talk, you can't even afford a decent meter.

RAT is a DIY hobby group, Poopie, so I proudly show on my netsite a
meter I built myself, and so well that after nearly twenty years it is
still in use.

But I have several other meters, including a couple of handheld
scopemeters that I find convenient to use if not quite as often as the
autoranging DMM I built myself.

Graham

In all the years you've been on RAT, Poopie, you have never, not once,
shown us something you built. So why not show us sometihing practical
and earn a little of the "respect" you crave so much?

With utmost contempt for a useless fool,

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Andre Jute]

Hey, Poopie Stevenson, now that you've failed to prove your false
accusation, don't you owe me an apology?

That I should have to ask for it proves that as well as being a liar
and a false accuser, you are no gentleman, Graham Stevenson.

Andre Jute
Good manner are the glue of civilized society -- Fouche

On Mar 5, 2:41*am, Andre Jute wrote:
Poopie Stevenson aka *Eeyore
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes

LIAR !

Prove it, Poopie.

You had no such thing whatever.

So you say, Poopie. Prove it, Poopie.

Your extravant pomposity has finally burst the
balloon of your ego.

Not at all, Poopie. We're just demonstrating that the limits of your
parochial mind is set by what happened in your provincial back yard
when you were a teenager, and now in your senility by your riprorting
blood pressure as measured by these fulminations.

Graham

I look forward to your proof of your contentions. When you fail to
provide proof, I shall be here to kick your lazy, slack, ugly, fat
arse over the cathedral for being a liar and a false accuser.

Andre Jute
Not from your tacky street corner

[Joe[_11_]]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:41:25 +1100, keithr wrote:

[snip]

I don't know the figures, but windows would have many times the amount
of "Useful" software than either the Mac or Linux. Unix is in it's
death throes (a couple of years ago my employer had a hundred or so
developers beavering away SUN workstations using Unix, now they all use
Linux on PCs)

[snip]

Linux *is* "Unix" - dickhead.

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

When hooked up with a broad band Internet
connection for downloading .wav files from clients the Mac
needs no virus protection which drags PCs to a crawl.

Virus protection drags PCs to a crawl ?

News to me. Not been using Norton have you ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

keithr wrote:

Try buying AutoCAD for the mac. There obviously are other CAD programs for
the mac, but AutoCAD is the standard for professional users.

Not for electronics it isn't.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jon Yaeger wrote:

*** Basically, Bill Gates et. all ripped of CPM and etc. etc.

No, not CP/M that's quite different. They bought QDOS and turned it into PC-DOS
and MS-DOS.

Graham

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 5, 3:58*pm, Eeyore
wrote:
keithr wrote:
Try buying AutoCAD for the mac. There obviously are other CAD programs for
the mac, but AutoCAD is the standard for professional users.

Mmm, I skipped most of the little ******'s posts because this Keithr
doesn't know the difference between his arse and his elbow. Well
caught, Poopie.

Not for electronics it isn't.

AutoCAD is great for laying out sewer pipes and planning street
repairs. A chum of mine made his fortune writing add-ons to AutoCAD
that he sells to municipal councils.

Graham

Yo, Poopie, why can't you perform all the time to the standard of
these flashes of wakefulness with which you occasionally surprise us?
Yaeger and I should both have picked that up, Yaeger of course being
more to blame than me, because he is in the computer trade and I
merely use the things.

Andre Jute
Versatile and wide awake

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 5, 4:06*pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Jon Yaeger wrote:
*** * Basically, Bill Gates et. all ripped of CPM and etc. etc.

No, not CP/M that's quite different. They bought QDOS and turned it into PC-DOS
and MS-DOS.

Holey Maloney, Poopster, did someone pop you an upper? I've never seen
you awake and paying attention for so long -- it must be ten minutes
already.

Graham

CP/M was the operating system for a different type of processor from
the ones fitted by IBM, for which the QDOS system was adapted into PC-
DOS by Bill and Paul and friends.

As one would expect with the retrospect of Bill Gates's history of not-
quite-there copycatting, CP/M was a superior programme and worked more
smoothly than the MicroShoddy product. I had CP/M on my Epson PX-8 and
it was such a pleasure to use, I kept the PX-8, even buying a second
and a third one, until the second or third series of Mac laptops came
out. It was a comparison of CP/M and DOS which I wrote for a computer
mag that first started me on the path of viewing Bill Gates's products
with a leery eye.

Andre Jute
Computer connoisseur

[Nick Gorham]

Andre Jute wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Eeyore
wrote:

Jon Yaeger wrote:

*** Basically, Bill Gates et. all ripped of CPM and etc. etc.

No, not CP/M that's quite different. They bought QDOS and turned it into PC-DOS
and MS-DOS.


Holey Maloney, Poopster, did someone pop you an upper? I've never seen
you awake and paying attention for so long -- it must be ten minutes
already.


Graham


CP/M was the operating system for a different type of processor from
the ones fitted by IBM, for which the QDOS system was adapted into PC-
DOS by Bill and Paul and friends.


That not true Andre, CP/M ran on 8088/8086 and Z80 processors, the
original IBM PC also used a 8088.

IBM originally approched Gary Kildall about using CP/M (on Bill Gates
suggestion), but on the instruction of his lawer they never talked.

In fact you could get CP/M-86 for the original PC.

I used to program for both CP/M and MS-DOS, its was clear that the two
shared a common history, if only for the layout of the executable header.

--
Nick

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Eeyore
wrote:

Jon Yaeger wrote:

*** Basically, Bill Gates et. all ripped of CPM and etc. etc.

No, not CP/M that's quite different. They bought QDOS and turned it into
PC-DOS
and MS-DOS.


Holey Maloney, Poopster, did someone pop you an upper? I've never seen
you awake and paying attention for so long -- it must be ten minutes
already.


Graham


CP/M was the operating system for a different type of processor from
the ones fitted by IBM, for which the QDOS system was adapted into PC-
DOS by Bill and Paul and friends.


That not true Andre, CP/M ran on 8088/8086 and Z80 processors, the
original IBM PC also used a 8088.

There was also a version of CP/M for the MC68000, I can't remember if I
sold the copy I had, or if it is still buried somewhere down in the
basement.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Nick Gorham]

John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:


Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Eeyore
wrote:


Jon Yaeger wrote:


*** Basically, Bill Gates et. all ripped of CPM and etc. etc.

No, not CP/M that's quite different. They bought QDOS and turned it into
PC-DOS
and MS-DOS.


Holey Maloney, Poopster, did someone pop you an upper? I've never seen
you awake and paying attention for so long -- it must be ten minutes
already.



Graham


CP/M was the operating system for a different type of processor from
the ones fitted by IBM, for which the QDOS system was adapted into PC-
DOS by Bill and Paul and friends.


That not true Andre, CP/M ran on 8088/8086 and Z80 processors, the
original IBM PC also used a 8088.


There was also a version of CP/M for the MC68000, I can't remember if I
sold the copy I had, or if it is still buried somewhere down in the
basement.


Regards,

John Byrns


Not sure, but I would have thought it was more likely to be the 6800, by
the time I got the 68000 we were using VERTEX and OS9.

But I more than willing to be wrong on that, but it was far more common
to find CP/M on Intel/Zilog shape processors, and it certainly was first
written for them.

--
Nick

[Eeyore]

Nick Gorham wrote:

In fact you could get CP/M-86 for the original PC.

Amstrad supplied it as an alernative to MS-DOS with early PC1512 models.


I used to program for both CP/M and MS-DOS, its was clear that the two
shared a common history, if only for the layout of the executable header.

I still use PL/M, the language CP/M was written in, albeit PL/M51 for the 8051
processor not PL/M86.

Graham

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 5, 5:07*pm, Nick Gorham wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Eeyore
wrote:

Jon Yaeger wrote:

*** * Basically, Bill Gates et. all ripped of CPM and etc. etc.

No, not CP/M that's quite different. They bought QDOS and turned it into PC-DOS
and MS-DOS.

Holey Maloney, Poopster, did someone pop you an upper? I've never seen
you awake and paying attention for so long -- it must be ten minutes
already.

Graham

CP/M was the operating system for a different type of processor from
the ones fitted by IBM, for which the QDOS system was adapted into PC-
DOS by Bill and Paul and friends.

That not true Andre, CP/M ran on 8088/8086 and Z80 processors, the
original IBM PC also used a 8088.

Good golly, you never cease to learn -- or relearn. I've already been
told in private mail that the true information is in my own book on
the PX8! Apologies to anyone inconvenienced -- probably only Mick, who
has a collection of significant old computers and would probably
remember better than I do which OS fitted which CPU.

Thanks for the heads-up, Nick. Fascinating history too, so I've left
it in below my sig.

Andre Jute
I used to be an expert...

IBM originally approched Gary Kildall about using CP/M (on Bill Gates
suggestion), but on the instruction of his lawer they never talked.

In fact you could get CP/M-86 for the original PC.

I used to program for both CP/M and MS-DOS, its was clear that the two
shared a common history, if only for the layout of the executable header.

--
Nick

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 5, 5:17*pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*Nick Gorham wrote:



Andre Jute wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Eeyore
wrote:

Jon Yaeger wrote:

*** * Basically, Bill Gates et. all ripped of CPM and etc. etc.

No, not CP/M that's quite different. They bought QDOS and turned it into
PC-DOS
and MS-DOS.

Holey Maloney, Poopster, did someone pop you an upper? I've never seen
you awake and paying attention for so long -- it must be ten minutes
already.

Graham

CP/M was the operating system for a different type of processor from
the ones fitted by IBM, for which the QDOS system was adapted into PC-
DOS by Bill and Paul and friends.

That not true Andre, CP/M ran on 8088/8086 and Z80 processors, the
original IBM PC also used a 8088.

There was also a version of CP/M for the MC68000,

Maybe one zero too many here, John, if you're talking about the
earliest series of those CPU. I think by the time of the 68000 CP/M
was a goner, or certainly not much in evidence any longer; things
moved very fast in those early days of desktop computers.

I can't remember if I
sold the copy I had, or if it is still buried somewhere down in the
basement.

That's a point worth remembering, that in those days the OS made up a
significant part of the capital cost of a computer.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/

Andre Jute
My first statistical calculator would in today's money cost USD5000

[John Byrns]

In article
,
Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 5, 5:17*pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*Nick Gorham wrote:



Andre Jute wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Eeyore
wrote:

Jon Yaeger wrote:

*** * Basically, Bill Gates et. all ripped of CPM and etc. etc.

No, not CP/M that's quite different. They bought QDOS and turned it into
PC-DOS
and MS-DOS.

Holey Maloney, Poopster, did someone pop you an upper? I've never seen
you awake and paying attention for so long -- it must be ten minutes
already.

Graham

CP/M was the operating system for a different type of processor from
the ones fitted by IBM, for which the QDOS system was adapted into PC-
DOS by Bill and Paul and friends.

That not true Andre, CP/M ran on 8088/8086 and Z80 processors, the
original IBM PC also used a 8088.

There was also a version of CP/M for the MC68000,

Maybe one zero too many here, John, if you're talking about the
earliest series of those CPU.

"earliest series of those CPU"? There is absolutely no relationship
between those two CPUs, beyond the fact that the same company designed
and manufactured both, and the original 68000 bus included a capability
to connect 6800 peripheral chips.

I think by the time of the 68000 CP/M
was a goner, or certainly not much in evidence any longer; things
moved very fast in those early days of desktop computers.

True, but that didn't prevent DR from creating CP/M-68K which I think is
what it was called.

I can't remember if I
sold the copy I had, or if it is still buried somewhere down in the
basement.

That's a point worth remembering, that in those days the OS made up a
significant part of the capital cost of a computer.

Thinking about it a little more, I think I sent my copy of CP/M-68K to
the landfill, and sold the "Emerald" single board computer I ran it it
on.

The "Emerald" board used a 68008 chip, note the two zeros not one, which
was a 68000 processor with an 8 bit data bus, rather than the 16 bit bus
of the 68000. Nothing much ever came of the 68008, it was my
understanding that it was developed to pitch to IBM for their
forthcoming PC, however while it was a far superior chip to the 8088
that IBM ultimately went with, apparently Motorola wasn't willing to
compete with Intel on price, presumably believing that their superior
chip would carry the day. IBM was apparently very price sensitive and
as they say the rest is history. IIRC the 68000 had a brief flash of
glory in the early Apple Lisa and Macintosh.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[keithr]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
Tell us, Keith, now that you've failed to persuade anyone on RAT of
anything by abuse, will you be telling us what qualities you to creep
into RAT and start abusing people going about their hobby?

*anybody* on RAT Andre? You speak for the whole group, or do you consider
yourself and your ego the whole group or at least the only worthwhile part.
As to abuse, I leave that to you, there are enough examples in this thread
alone to mark you as the main abuser on this news group.

Are you about to stun us with a new tube amp design that we have never
seen before? You do know this a tube hobby group, don't you?

There is no such thing as a new tube amp design, it has all been done. The
topographies were all known and understood 50 years ago, there has barely
been a new tube released in that time either. There of course been fashion
changes in that time, mostly regressive. So, if you want to design an amp
simply pick an output class put the figures into the same equations that I
learned in college in the late 50's (that is not the challenge that it once
was when all we had were slip sticks, now there are all sorts of rinky dink
computer programs to do it for you). Then it is just a matter of common
sense and metal bashing. Not exactly the most challenging of tasks.

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

He he you must be the only man in the world who has collected every
complement he ever got and then publishes them on every post you ever make.
there is just one thing world class about you Andre - your ego.

Keith

[keithr]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...

You're never going to understand, Keith. People use Windoze because
they *have* to, because they have no choice in the workplace, or they
don't have the money for a Mac. People *choose* the Mac because it
improves their lives and their work. For people who can afford a Mac,
there is no reason to buy some other cardboard cut-out computer that
mimics the Mac's interface without the deep understanding of what it
is all about.

I don't use windows because I have to, I use it because I have a huge choice
of both hardware and software. If I want to upgrade my hardware, I don't
have to go out and buy a whole new computer, I simply plug in the new part
be that a motherboard, CPU, RAM or disk. Try that with an apple.

As to ripping off other peoples work, Apple ripped off Xerox Parc for it's
interface, and BSD for it's operating system. Do you remember when Apple
tried to sue Microsoft for copying "It's" interface, they got set off with a
flea in their ear.

People who use Windoze computers think the computer comes first.
People who use Macs think people come first.

It is a difference of principle which you will never see as long as
you bleat about how a cheap copycat is as good as the real thing.

Andre Jute

If the Mac is what floats your boat, then by all means use it but drop the
notion that you are somehow superior for doing so.

Keith

[keithr]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Jon Yaeger wrote:
*** Basically, Bill Gates et. all ripped of CPM and etc. etc.

No, not CP/M that's quite different. They bought QDOS and turned it into
PC-DOS
and MS-DOS.

Holey Maloney, Poopster, did someone pop you an upper? I've never seen
you awake and paying attention for so long -- it must be ten minutes
already.

Graham

CP/M was the operating system for a different type of processor from
the ones fitted by IBM, for which the QDOS system was adapted into PC-
DOS by Bill and Paul and friends.

Actually there was a CPM/86 I had a Japanese computer that ran on it. It
was, in fact, the operating system that IBM originally wished to put on
their PC. It was only when Digital Research showed no interest that they
turned to Gates et al, and the rest is history. Digital Research lived on,
the last I saw of them was their concurrent DOS in the early 90's, a brave,
but poor attempt at a multitasking operating system totally killed off by NT
and OS/2.

As one would expect with the retrospect of Bill Gates's history of not-
quite-there copycatting, CP/M was a superior programme and worked more
smoothly than the MicroShoddy product. I had CP/M on my Epson PX-8 and
it was such a pleasure to use, I kept the PX-8, even buying a second
and a third one, until the second or third series of Mac laptops came
out. It was a comparison of CP/M and DOS which I wrote for a computer
mag that first started me on the path of viewing Bill Gates's products
with a leery eye.

my second micro computer (The first was a single board machine built from a
kit in 1978) was a Japanese CP/M machine very advanced for 1980, it had dual
processors (a Z80 and a 68B09) and another 6809 as a graphics engine. I used
that machine for quite a few years, but CP/M was in no way superior to DOS,
it's directory structure was primitive, its command repertoire limited and
applications even more limited. Gates modified Q-DOS which was partly based
on CP/M but M$ ripped far more off from Unix than CP/M

Andre Jute
Computer connoisseur

ROFL

Keith