| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OP-AMP like circuit in old audio amp (P-P) in old radio
The 6SQ7 triode is wired to act a bit like an inverting op amp
here. Did a circuitmaker simulation of this, and the output of the "op-amp" has a gain of about -0.92 The "open loop" gain is about 40 The output tubes are in class A mode, so a slight mismatch won't much matter. The radio that this is used in is an Emerson 460 AM/ prewar FM set. see diagram in alt.binaries.pictures.radio |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Robert Casey
wrote: The 6SQ7 triode is wired to act a bit like an inverting op amp here. Did a circuitmaker simulation of this, and the output of the "op-amp" has a gain of about -0.92 The "open loop" gain is about 40 The output tubes are in class A mode, so a slight mismatch won't much matter. That's our old friend the "floating paraphase" phase inverter, my personal favorite of all the electronic phase inverter circuits. The balance can be improved by lowering the value of the upper grid resistor slightly. The open loop gain can also be increased significantly, which will also help with the balance, at the cost of an extra resistor, by clipping out the common 220k resistor to ground, and installing separate grid resistors from the grid of each 25L6 to ground. This will increase the loading on the 6SH7 and 6SQ7 which may or may not be a problem, and should be taken into account. Freed of the constraint of serving as the 25L6 grid resistors, the two 470k resistors could be increased in value a bit to reduce the loading, maybe 1 meg or so. The operating points of the 6SH7 and 6SQ7 could also be adjusted slightly to help drive the lower load. While this circuit was common in audio equipment, it was rare in old radios, which seemed to favor the simple voltage divider and amplifier approach, I never understood the reason for this. The radio that this is used in is an Emerson 460 AM/ prewar FM set. see diagram in alt.binaries.pictures.radio I tried to lookup the complete schematic for the Emerson 460, but couldn't find that model number. Those two negative feedback loops around the amplifier are certainly weird. Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Byrns wrote:
(snip) That's our old friend the "floating paraphase" phase inverter, my personal favorite of all the electronic phase inverter circuits. (snip) While this circuit was common in audio equipment, it was rare in old radios, which seemed to favor the simple voltage divider and amplifier approach, I never understood the reason for this. (snip) Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ John, I cannot quite visualize what this is from your description. Any chance of putting this schematic up on the alt.binaries.pictures.radio? Many thanks, and cheers, Roger -- Roger Jones, P.Eng. Thornhill, Ontario, Canada. "Friends don't let friends vote Liberal" |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Byrns wrote:
In article , wrote: John Byrns wrote: (snip) That's our old friend the "floating paraphase" phase inverter, my personal favorite of all the electronic phase inverter circuits. (snip) While this circuit was common in audio equipment, it was rare in old radios, which seemed to favor the simple voltage divider and amplifier approach, I never understood the reason for this. (snip) Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ John, I cannot quite visualize what this is from your description. Any chance of putting this schematic up on the alt.binaries.pictures.radio? That's where Robert, the OP, put it and where I found it. Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ Thanks, John, I took a look. My first reaction is that the 6SQ7 could be better used as a straight phase splitter, viz: equal 220K plate and "cathode" resistors (the latter below a 2.2K - guessed - plus 25 uF decoupled cathode bias circuit.) G1 fed by a 0.05 uF with a 470K to the junction of the 2.2K and the lower 220K. Then two 0.05 uF to the G1 of the 25L6's, one from the 6SQ7 plate and the other from the aforementioned junction, with a couple of, say, 22O K's to ground (or -ve bias, in which case the 25L6 cathodes could go to ground directly.) Easy to get NFB off the voice coil side of the OPT back to the 6SH7 cathode circuit. A quick count shows at least one fewer component than the so-called "paraphase" circuit, anyway not more. What do "radiophono + RATS" think? Cheers, Roger -- Roger Jones, P.Eng. Thornhill, Ontario, Canada. "Friends don't let friends vote Liberal" |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , wrote:
Thanks, John, I took a look. My first reaction is that the 6SQ7 could be better used as a straight phase splitter, viz: equal 220K plate and "cathode" resistors (the latter below a 2.2K - guessed - plus 25 uF decoupled cathode bias circuit.) G1 fed by a 0.05 uF with a 470K to the junction of the 2.2K and the lower 220K. Then two 0.05 uF to the G1 of the 25L6's, one from the 6SQ7 plate and the other from the aforementioned junction, with a couple of, say, 22O K's to ground (or -ve bias, in which case the 25L6 cathodes could go to ground directly.) With the "straight phase splitter" you are dividing the output capability of the 6SQ7 between the plate and cathode circuits, doubling the swing the 6SQ7 must provide, are you sure this won't be a problem? On the plus side is the inherent negative feedback in the "straight phase splitter" that will help mitigate some of the distortion at the higher output level. Another potential problem, and one of the reasons I was looking for the complete schematic of the radio is that the diodes in the 6SQ7 may be being used as the detector and AGC rectifier, in which case the high DC voltage on the cathode of a "straight phase splitter" would be a problem, especially for the AGC circuit. If the 6SQ7 diodes are not being used for the detector and AGC rectifier, then the heater of the 6SQ7 may have a fairly high AC voltage on it, as it will not be the first, or probably even second, heater in the series string. This higher than usual heater voltage could result in hum problems for a "straight phase splitter" where the cathode is not tied to AC ground potential. A quick count shows at least one fewer component than the so-called "paraphase" circuit, anyway not more. I count one more resistor for the "straight phase splitter", plus the 25 uF you have in the cathode bias circuit in place of the low value coupling capacitor in the floating paraphase circuit, although I don't see that using a capacitor in the cathode bias circuit actually provides any benefit, so omitting it would make the component counts equal. If you really want to pinch pennies it is possible to get rid of one more component in the floating paraphase circuit, giving it the component count advantage again. Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can't see it from this end either. Are any of the others out there
effected by the virus swarm during the past few days? I see several posts in that regard over at Rec.antiques. Perhaps the system is somehow stuck. Not sure. I got about 200 hits over the weekend by something claiming to be MS fixes. Luckily all blocked by Norton, but a pain in the butt. Cheers, John Stewart Engineer wrote: John Byrns wrote: (snip) That's our old friend the "floating paraphase" phase inverter, my personal favorite of all the electronic phase inverter circuits. (snip) While this circuit was common in audio equipment, it was rare in old radios, which seemed to favor the simple voltage divider and amplifier approach, I never understood the reason for this. (snip) Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ John, I cannot quite visualize what this is from your description. Any chance of putting this schematic up on the alt.binaries.pictures.radio? Many thanks, and cheers, Roger -- Roger Jones, P.Eng. Thornhill, Ontario, Canada. "Friends don't let friends vote Liberal" |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Byrns wrote:
Another potential problem, and one of the reasons I was looking for the complete schematic of the radio is that the diodes in the 6SQ7 may be being used as the detector and AGC rectifier, in which case the high DC voltage on the cathode of a "straight phase splitter" would be a problem, especially for the AGC circuit. Yes, those diodes are used for the AM detector. A 6H6 is used for the FM detector. I haven't been able to find a diagram for this radio either. It must be truely a "rare" radio...... :-) If the 6SQ7 diodes are not being used for the detector and AGC rectifier, then the heater of the 6SQ7 may have a fairly high AC voltage on it, as it will not be the first, or probably even second, heater in the series string. This higher than usual heater voltage could result in hum problems for a "straight phase splitter" where the cathode is not tied to AC ground potential. A quick count shows at least one fewer component than the so-called "paraphase" circuit, anyway not more. I count one more resistor for the "straight phase splitter", plus the 25 uF you have in the cathode bias circuit in place of the low value coupling capacitor in the floating paraphase circuit, although I don't see that using a capacitor in the cathode bias circuit actually provides any benefit, so omitting it would make the component counts equal. If you really want to pinch pennies it is possible to get rid of one more component in the floating paraphase circuit, giving it the component count advantage again. Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
john stewart wrote in message ...
Can't see it from this end either. Are any of the others out there effected by the virus swarm during the past few days? I see several posts in that regard over at Rec.antiques. Perhaps the system is somehow stuck. Not sure. I got about 200 hits over the weekend by something claiming to be MS fixes. Luckily all blocked by Norton, but a pain in the butt. I second that! WTH is up with the supposed MS fixes? I got about 200 in the last couple days aswell! (Thank god for Mozilla's spam filter.) (snip) |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hm, looks like some script kiddie has been collecting names from this NG
 "Nothing40" wrote in message om... : john stewart wrote in message ... : Can't see it from this end either. Are any of the others out there : effected by the virus swarm during the past few days? I see several : posts in that regard over at Rec.antiques. Perhaps the system is : somehow stuck. Not sure. : : I got about 200 hits over the weekend by something claiming to : be MS fixes. Luckily all blocked by Norton, but a pain in the butt. : : : I second that! WTH is up with the supposed MS fixes? I got about 200 : in the last couple days aswell! (Thank god for Mozilla's spam : filter.) : : : : : (snip) : |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
The way this trojan horse works is as follows:
1) some idiot sees the letter announcing an upgrade for all your troubles - signed Microsoft Security Department. 2) said idiot thinks to himself, "Oh goody! I heard there were problems that needed upgrading, now I don't have to remember what microsoft's URL is!"... and clicks on the attachment (with outhouse express) and the attachment runs, and installs its own little SMTP mail handler on his system. The mail handler is setup to start every time he turns on his machine. 3) The Trojan SMTP mail handler scans said idiot's disk for email addresses in his: Address book, collected address book, etc. 4) The Trojan SMTP mail handler sends a copy of itself to everyone it finds... It randomly picks return addresses from the addresses it finds...It never uses the address of the idiot. Enter a couple of new idiots, and this thing starts to multiply. -Chuck Ruud Broens wrote: Hm, looks like some script kiddie has been collecting names from this NG "Nothing40" wrote in message om... : john stewart wrote in message ... : Can't see it from this end either. Are any of the others out there : effected by the virus swarm during the past few days? I see several : posts in that regard over at Rec.antiques. Perhaps the system is : somehow stuck. Not sure. : : I got about 200 hits over the weekend by something claiming to : be MS fixes. Luckily all blocked by Norton, but a pain in the butt. : : : I second that! WTH is up with the supposed MS fixes? I got about 200 : in the last couple days aswell! (Thank god for Mozilla's spam : filter.) : : : : : (snip) : |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
same sheeeetttt happens to me-at least 400 posts I must delete directly at
my server (in fact my ISP's server) ; hehe-few times I even must delete entire Outhouse folder,just because my inbox (or deleted items folder) is full of undeletable shheeeetttt!. of course,before that I copy all other subfolders. exact procedure- you must find Outlook Express folder,rename it to whatever you want; click on OE,then new OE store folder will be made; select and copy all subfolders from renamed OE to new OE,then just delete renamed OE. sheeet happen all the time,even my Kaspersky Antivirus can't do nothing more except to prevent opening of suspicious attachments. -- .. Choky Prodanovic Aleksandar YU "don't use force, use a larger hammer" - ZM .. "Ruud Broens" wrote in message .. . Hm, looks like some script kiddie has been collecting names from this NG "Nothing40" wrote in message om... : john stewart wrote in message ... : Can't see it from this end either. Are any of the others out there : effected by the virus swarm during the past few days? I see several : posts in that regard over at Rec.antiques. Perhaps the system is : somehow stuck. Not sure. : : I got about 200 hits over the weekend by something claiming to : be MS fixes. Luckily all blocked by Norton, but a pain in the butt. : : : I second that! WTH is up with the supposed MS fixes? I got about 200 : in the last couple days aswell! (Thank god for Mozilla's spam : filter.) : : : : : (snip) : |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Goller, k9uwa" wrote in message
news:S6Ibb.552997$uu5.91602@sccrnsc04... Enter a couple of new idiots, and this thing starts to multiply. Another darned good reason I don't use OE ... You'll note that I'm using OE and have never had a problem with worms or viruses... Tim -- In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!" Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Williams wrote: "John Goller, k9uwa" wrote in message news:S6Ibb.552997$uu5.91602@sccrnsc04... Enter a couple of new idiots, and this thing starts to multiply. Another darned good reason I don't use OE ... You'll note that I'm using OE and have never had a problem with worms or viruses... Tim Oh yeah? Well, that's only because you have a brain. :-p Cheers, Fred -- +--------------------------------------------+ | Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ | | Projects: http://dogstar.dantimax.dk | +--------------------------------------------+ |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:39:17 -0500, the highly esteemed Tim Williams
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom: "John Goller, k9uwa" wrote in message news:S6Ibb.552997$uu5.91602@sccrnsc04... Enter a couple of new idiots, and this thing starts to multiply. Another darned good reason I don't use OE ... You'll note that I'm using OE and have never had a problem with worms or viruses... Tim "And yay though I walk through the valley in the shadow of viruses and worms, I shall fear no evil, for I am using Linux." -- Greg --The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greg Pierce wrote: On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:39:17 -0500, the highly esteemed Tim Williams enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom: "John Goller, k9uwa" wrote in message news:S6Ibb.552997$uu5.91602@sccrnsc04... Enter a couple of new idiots, and this thing starts to multiply. Another darned good reason I don't use OE ... You'll note that I'm using OE and have never had a problem with worms or viruses... Tim "And yay though I walk through the valley in the shadow of viruses and worms, I shall fear no evil, for I am using Linux." But the irony is, Linux (and Mac) users are still a "target" in the form of tons of unsolicited email traffic generated by the worms, no? The problem is not the malware per se; much of it, like this current wave, is extremely clever programming and design. The problem stems from ignorance on the part of users who run the attachment and thereby spread the infection. If Linux were as prevalent as Winwoes, you can be assured that 1) there will be people who shouldn't be using computers attempting to use Linux, and 2) there will be script kiddies taking advantage of the stupidity of the individuals in 1) above. Cheers, Fred (appropriate enough typing this from my Winwoes partition...) Hey by the way, Greg, is there any reason why Netscape/Mozilla can't share the same profile(s) across platforms? It would of course have to be in one of the Windows partitions, since Win can't even "see" Lin, but Lin has control over Win. ;-) -- +--------------------------------------------+ | Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ | | Projects: http://dogstar.dantimax.dk | +--------------------------------------------+ |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
In Chuck Harris writes:
The way this trojan horse works is as follows: 1) some idiot sees the letter announcing an upgrade for all your troubles - signed Microsoft Security Department. 2) said idiot thinks to himself, "Oh goody! I heard there were problems that needed upgrading, now I don't have to remember what microsoft's URL is!"... and clicks on the attachment (with outhouse express) and the attachment runs, and installs its own little SMTP mail handler on his system. The mail handler is setup to start every time he turns on his machine. Outlook and Outlook EXpress are the tonsils of the Internet. If there's a virus going around, they'll catch it and spread it. -- Tim Mullen ------------------------------------------------------------------ Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc. ------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 ------- |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
In Fred Nachbaur writes:
the infection. If Linux were as prevalent as Winwoes, you can be assured that 1) there will be people who shouldn't be using computers attempting to use Linux, and 2) there will be script kiddies taking advantage of the stupidity of the individuals in 1) above. The difference is it's so much easier to stop. So long as you're running as a normal user (not root), and you haven't intentionally made login world-writeable or anything, nothing you do can modify the system. If something starts up when you log in, move your .login (or .profile for bourne shell and variants) and you're safe. See OpenBSD's claim of one remote exploit in a default install in seven years. And just because CompUSA's never heard of OpenBSD doesn't mean it ain't out there. -- Tim Mullen ------------------------------------------------------------------ Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc. ------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 ------- |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:21:48 +0000, the highly esteemed Fred Nachbaur
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom: Greg Pierce wrote: On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:39:17 -0500, the highly esteemed Tim Williams enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom: "John Goller, k9uwa" wrote in message news:S6Ibb.552997$uu5.91602@sccrnsc04... Enter a couple of new idiots, and this thing starts to multiply. Another darned good reason I don't use OE ... You'll note that I'm using OE and have never had a problem with worms or viruses... Tim "And yay though I walk through the valley in the shadow of viruses and worms, I shall fear no evil, for I am using Linux." But the irony is, Linux (and Mac) users are still a "target" in the form of tons of unsolicited email traffic generated by the worms, no? The problem is not the malware per se; much of it, like this current wave, is extremely clever programming and design. The problem stems from ignorance on the part of users who run the attachment and thereby spread the infection. If Linux were as prevalent as Winwoes, you can be assured that 1) there will be people who shouldn't be using computers attempting to use Linux, and 2) there will be script kiddies taking advantage of the stupidity of the individuals in 1) above. Cheers, Fred (appropriate enough typing this from my Winwoes partition...) Hey by the way, Greg, is there any reason why Netscape/Mozilla can't share the same profile(s) across platforms? It would of course have to be in one of the Windows partitions, since Win can't even "see" Lin, but Lin has control over Win. ;-) Yup, you can share the profiles, but without seeing your file structure, i.e. where the Mozilla in windows puts its user files, I couldn't tell you precisely what to link to make it work. Most people I know who must use windows for certain apps either use a seperate box with Windows (usually VNCing it to their Linux box) or use VMWare - either is much preferable to dual-booting. The advantage to dual booting is cost; you don't need a seperate machine or a $300 seat of VMWare... -- Greg --The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tim Mullen" wrote in message ... In Fred Nachbaur writes: the infection. If Linux were as prevalent as Winwoes, you can be assured that 1) there will be people who shouldn't be using computers attempting to use Linux, and 2) there will be script kiddies taking advantage of the stupidity of the individuals in 1) above. The difference is it's so much easier to stop. So long as you're running as a normal user (not root), and you haven't intentionally made login world-writeable or anything, nothing you do can modify the system. If something starts up when you log in, move your .login (or .profile for bourne shell and variants) and you're safe. See OpenBSD's claim of one remote exploit in a default install in seven years. And just because CompUSA's never heard of OpenBSD doesn't mean it ain't out there. Hi Tim - It's just as simple to configure a win2000 workstation, I'd say easier. The thing is, a tight configuration, even something as basic as creating a sub-admin level user account & having to log on, is too much of a hassle for most winbox users. I'm guilty myself. You can easily configure a user account with next to no privilages, disable most services etc. to make a winbox behave like a *nixbox. Unfortunately, we want our boxen to be appliences, we *don't want to think about them*, we want them to do everything & never have problems. Kind'a like never having to lock any doors or windows in your house, never turning on the alarm (all those things take time & are a hassle), letting everyone walk in & out, and expecting nothing to be stolen. Win2000, on install, configures itself with more unlocked doors than ya' can shake a stick at. most win users leave it at that. Doesn't mean that one can't lock all the doors. Sure, good / lucky hackers can find ways to exploit some wistles & bells even in well-configured winboxen. As they could with *nix or any other non-trivial OS. More hackers go after winboxenn 'coz ... there are more winboxen... And then, there's the lovable Bill who's just asking for it. But. There's no way to convince me to switch to an OS which won't allow me to use 95% of the apps that I am used to, use 95% of the available apps (or lets me run them at snail-pace), which makes me *think* about it every step of the way. I ain't got time. -dim |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
In "Shiva" writes:
Win2000, on install, configures itself with more unlocked doors than ya' can shake a stick at. most win users leave it at that. Doesn't mean that one can't lock all the doors. I think the biggest gripe I have is with the marketing forces that convince users (who are all too ready to believe the hype) that everything they want can be configured automatically with that magic start button. Wizard-this, wizard-that. And I'm suspicious of companies that A) make this their main goal, and B) have a poor track record of reliable software. Look, I'm not advocating a hair shirt religious approach to all this -- it'd be great if there was no pain at all involved. But computers just ain't there yet. They're not. You can't yet have stuff automagically be run when you "open" your e-mail that spews reconfigurations all over your operating system without Bad Things happening. Ditching "open" in favor of the good ole-fashioned "read" would be a good first step. And, yeah, I can be lazy too. I run UID 0 on my home box, effectively making me root. D'oh!  But I don't run code that willy-nilly considersgranma's cookie recipe to be a program, I don't telnet in the clear, etc. etc. But. There's no way to convince me to switch to an OS which won't allow me to use 95% of the apps that I am used to, use 95% of the available apps (or lets me run them at snail-pace), which makes me *think* about it every step of the way. I ain't got time. This being a technically-inclined group, I keep urging folks to bite the bullet and give it a shot. Sure, there's a learning curve. For worthwhile things there usually is. Look at driving. Run the exact app? Probably not. Get stuff done? Absolutely. -- Tim Mullen ------------------------------------------------------------------ Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc. ------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 ------- |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tim Mullen" wrote in message ... In "Shiva" writes: Win2000, on install, configures itself with more unlocked doors than ya' can shake a stick at. most win users leave it at that. Doesn't mean that one can't lock all the doors. I think the biggest gripe I have is with the marketing forces that convince users (who are all too ready to believe the hype) that everything they want can be configured automatically with that magic start button. Wizard-this, wizard-that. And I'm suspicious of companies that A) make this their main goal, and B) have a poor track record of reliable software. Look, I'm not advocating a hair shirt religious approach to all this -- it'd be great if there was no pain at all involved. But computers just ain't there yet. They're not. You can't yet have stuff automagically be run when you "open" your e-mail that spews reconfigurations all over your operating system without Bad Things happening. Ditching "open" in favor of the good ole-fashioned "read" would be a good first step. And, yeah, I can be lazy too. I run UID 0 on my home box, effectively making me root. D'oh! But I don't run code that willy-nilly considersgranma's cookie recipe to be a program, I don't telnet in the clear, etc. etc. But. There's no way to convince me to switch to an OS which won't allow me to use 95% of the apps that I am used to, use 95% of the available apps (or lets me run them at snail-pace), which makes me *think* about it every step of the way. I ain't got time. This being a technically-inclined group, I keep urging folks to bite the bullet and give it a shot. Sure, there's a learning curve. For worthwhile things there usually is. Look at driving. Run the exact app? Probably not. Get stuff done? Absolutely. Tim, there's not a point you've made here that I don't agree with, I too hate the MS BS 'bout "security", "automatic configuration", apps with useless wistles & bells which, in default config, become security holes, the registry, whic I doubt anyone has fully mastered (it's like reading uncommented code...), well, *everything*. OTOH, I look at the way my GF uses her computer (she *needs* it for work, but has 20,000 applets & 7 usb things pluggwed into it - i get to deal with the foolish things when stuff goes wrong), the way the kids use their boxen, and I just can't imagine them on a *nix system. I hate everything that MS stands for, but... I have to pick my battles now. Just decided toget back into C++, and got Borlands' C++ builder 6 - whoa! Drag & drop programming... I want to write an app which will be able to read & convert toob curves from scanned graphs into data, for obvious reasons... Wonder if such an app already exists for something else? -dim -- Tim Mullen ------------------------------------------------------------------ Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc. ------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 ------- |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
I want to write an app which will be able to read & convert toob curves from scanned graphs into data, for obvious reasons... Wonder if such an app already exists for something else? If you get that far with the tube curve analyzer, maybe you could also have it create spice models of those tubes. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
In "Shiva" writes:
OTOH, I look at the way my GF uses her computer (she *needs* it for work, but has 20,000 applets & 7 usb things pluggwed into it - i get to deal with the foolish things when stuff goes wrong), the way the kids use their boxen, and I just can't imagine them on a *nix system. Then again, secretaries used to use command line back in the days before GUI's. Folks can be trained. It's not really that hard. It just depends on which point-n-click system you get used to. You can even make KDE look a lot like you-know-what, for users who can't understand programs without blue title bars. My ex (she's a fashion photographer) used to use my Sparc's just fine. When we split for a while she got an iMac, so when she moved back in I got stuck supporting it. So I feel your pain. ust decided toget back into C++, and got Borlands' C++ builder 6 - whoa! Drag & drop programming... I want to write an app which will be able to read & convert toob curves from scanned graphs into data, for obvious reasons... Wonder if such an app already exists for something else? I'm a sysadmin, not a programmer. In fact, the last *real* (i.e., not a mess program I wrote was back in the fortran/algol days. Scary.So I'm not sure whatall that development enviroment buys you. But, if this is close to what you're talking about, there've been gui-builders around for a long time under X. I've fired up a few, stared at them, then went on to things I understood better. Here's a current one:http://glade.gnome.org I just fired it up & stared at it, and it seems oriented toward the UI, which isn't surprising, being a visual bazinga. I'm guessing you're looking for this welded onto a code development enviroment? Anyways, sounds like a cool project! -- Tim Mullen ------------------------------------------------------------------ Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc. ------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 ------- |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tim Mullen" wrote in message ... In "Shiva" writes: OTOH, I look at the way my GF uses her computer (she *needs* it for work, but has 20,000 applets & 7 usb things pluggwed into it - i get to deal with the foolish things when stuff goes wrong), the way the kids use their boxen, and I just can't imagine them on a *nix system. Then again, secretaries used to use command line back in the days before GUI's. Folks can be trained. It's not really that hard. It just depends on which point-n-click system you get used to. You can even make KDE look a lot like you-know-what, for users who can't understand programs without blue title bars. KDE & the rest of *nix gui shells may look like win / mac shells, the problem is... *nix is not suited too well to GUI. Not' coz it's a bad thing - the philosophy behind the design is unsuitable for GUI. it needs much more than a front end - it needs - to be a different OS. How much time do you actually spend in a GUI? And, if a GUI is running, is the "console", or whatever the comand window is called, always open? As far as secetaries go, before computers came around, they made do with quill pens. Fortunately, they didn't have to deal with what's considered to be a de facto standard of tasks a secretary is responsible for today. There's no reason to boot into / run a GUI with win - strangely enough, everyone does... My ex (she's a fashion photographer) used to use my Sparc's just fine. When we split for a while she got an iMac, so when she moved back in I got stuck supporting it. So I feel your pain. It's not just the appliance mentality, but the "simple questions which deserve simple answers". Answers like "I'd have to explain achitecture, interrupt structure, shared DLL's etc., etc. simply sound like a brush-off... to read & convert toob curves from scanned graphs into data, for obvious reasons... Wonder if such an app already exists for something else? I'm a sysadmin, not a programmer. In fact, the last *real* (i.e., not a mess program I wrote was back in the fortran/algol days. Scary.Don't feel bad - my dad used to have to write in ADA when he found out no one needed another math PHuD & Fortran's days were numbered 9i think there are still appys maintained, though...) So I'm not sure whatall that development enviroment buys you. But, if this is close to what you're talking about, there've been gui-builders around for a long time under X. I've fired up a few, stared at them, then went on to things I understood better. Here's a current one:I've actually learned C on Borland's Turbo C - a DOS- based kind'o GUI *environment*, which i ran on a PC1 with 2 560k floppies & a tiny virtual drive (640k total mem). Very friendly. Borland Builder 6 ... does everything for you 'cept writing the raw code. And doing your laundry. http://glade.gnome.org I just fired it up & stared at it, and it seems oriented toward the UI, which isn't surprising, being a visual bazinga. I'm guessing you're looking for this welded onto a code development enviroment? Anyways, sounds like a cool project! As soon as I'm done with some payin' dirtwork, like *re-tiling an apaartment hallway*, *building a new set of stairs*, and finishing up a few amps (which pays nowhere near what dogwork does), I'm on it... -dim -- Tim Mullen ------------------------------------------------------------------ Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc. ------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 ------- |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shiva wrote: [....] KDE & the rest of *nix gui shells may look like win / mac shells, They can, but they don't have to. On one extreme is the minimalist (but still highly configurable) WM, which makes it possible to run a GUI environment even on slowish computers. The range continues through the more "fancy dancy" shells like Blackbox and Gnome (actually, Gnome was more of a spinoff of a suite of apps than a "ground-up" GUI). At the "top" (and I use that term loosely) is Enlightenment, which is a total showboat for the GUI-addicted; everything's textured and animated and bloated within an inch of its life. So, choose your weapon. KDE is somewhere in the middle, and is my choice for routine use because it can have a very similar look/feel to Windows (which I'm used to) and because there's very little that can't be done in the GUI, as implemented in Mandrake 9. the problem is... *nix is not suited too well to GUI. The same argument could be made for DOS or the NT kernel. Not' coz it's a bad thing - the philosophy behind the design is unsuitable for GUI. it needs much more than a front end - it needs - to be a different OS. Why? I get the sense that it's been a long time since you've tried it. Linux and X are very much *evolving* technologies, unlike the microshaft stuff which is just one big cumulative patch. How much time do you actually spend in a GUI? Almost all of it. The exception is when running strictly command-line stuff like seti-at-home, or doing other operations that are possible in the GUI, but easier on the command line. And, if a GUI is running, is the "console", or whatever the comand window is called, always open? No. The kernel is always running of course, just as it is in NT or DOS-based version of Winwoes. Opening a command window is almost the identical operation to opening a DOS box in windoze. [...] Cheers, Fred -- +--------------------------------------------+ | Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ | | Projects: http://dogstar.dantimax.dk | +--------------------------------------------+ |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whoa there dim! You're missing a really big part of the picture. All
variants of Winblows are just a graphical interface sitting on top of a dos like operating system. NT and its bretheren are using a dos type operating system that is more like *nix in its kernel than it is like the old dos kernel. Because the real power users of computers all use *nix systems, *nix systems are usually set up in ways that sophisticated users like. And that means that there must be text shells easily available (eg. csh, ksh, bash...) It doesn't mean that these text shells must be used. Not at all. Power users use them because they provide the most powerful interface to system related functions. There are linux systems that run on palm type computers, and have very minimal stylus based text interfaces, just like the usual palm operating systems. There are even linux systems that run on cell phones (motorola). If you go out and get one of the variants of linux that are meant for the unwashed masses, and fire it up, you will wonder what went wrong, why did windows come up instead of linux? Many of the linux variants are specifically configured to be rather indistinguishable from the Winshmoze gui. You'll have to ask someone else which ones they are, as I have no desire to go there. Infact, when running under the Wine interface, last I heard, all of the MSOffice stuff worked just fine. (As did visual basic, and visual C++.) Why you would want to run it under linux when OpenOffice is available, I really don't know. Dos is the kernel of windoze, linux is the kernel of the linux operating system. The kernel handles keyboard interrupts, mouse interrupts, reading and writing to the file system, memory management, the ethernet controllers, sound blaster cards, graphics cards, game controllers, tape drives, modems, disk caches, ppp, ... On top of the kernel are the various shells. Dos's command.com is a very rudimentary text shell. *nix's Bash and its brethern are extremely powerful text shells. Winblahs is a GUI shell. It has to run on top of DOS. X is a much more versatile GUI shell, one that doesn't have to be running on your local computer, but could be displaying the output/input of an application running on a remote server somewhere out on a network. On top of Winflows is a bunch of goodies that allow you to mess with the way the gui looks and feels. The same for X, only there are easily 100 times the variety out there... it seems like every other master's degree candidate in CS wrote his own shell that runs on top of the X windowing system. (fwm,twm,gnome, kde, afterdark, Nextstep, ...) You are selling *nix systems very short if you believe that they even need a command line interface... they don't. You are selling them very short if you believe that there is anything about the *nix kernel that doesn't lend itself to a GUI shell interface...there isn't. -Chuck Shiva wrote: KDE & the rest of *nix gui shells may look like win / mac shells, the problem is... *nix is not suited too well to GUI. Not' coz it's a bad thing - the philosophy behind the design is unsuitable for GUI. it needs much more than a front end - it needs - to be a different OS. How much time do you actually spend in a GUI? And, if a GUI is running, is the "console", or whatever the comand window is called, always open? As far as secetaries go, before computers came around, they made do with quill pens. Fortunately, they didn't have to deal with what's considered to be a de facto standard of tasks a secretary is responsible for today. There's no reason to boot into / run a GUI with win - strangely enough, everyone does... My ex (she's a fashion photographer) used to use my Sparc's just fine. When we split for a while she got an iMac, so when she moved back in I got stuck supporting it. So I feel your pain. It's not just the appliance mentality, but the "simple questions which deserve simple answers". Answers like "I'd have to explain achitecture, interrupt structure, shared DLL's etc., etc. simply sound like a brush-off... to read & convert |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
before we all fall into the *nix propaganda, let's look at an experiment I
tried - I made a simple diagram inside one of the open source office components that is like powerpoint - a page with two donuts on it, and then printed it. I had saved the file as a ".ppt" file so I could test it in both windows powerpoint and in this red hat linux environment - the page took over 5 minutes to print from the linux environment, the same file printed from PPT started printing almost instantaneously. Now, you can come up with many reasons why this should be so, including postscript versus HPGL6, and all of that, but the bottom line is that we aren't there yet for office aplications. I did find that internet browsing worked fine, but it took me forever to get my Intel print server recognized so that I could print properly - "Chuck Harris" wrote in message ... Whoa there dim! You're missing a really big part of the picture. All variants of Winblows are just a graphical interface sitting on top of a dos like operating system. NT and its bretheren are using a dos type operating system that is more like *nix in its kernel than it is like the old dos kernel. Because the real power users of computers all use *nix systems, *nix systems are usually set up in ways that sophisticated users like. And that means that there must be text shells easily available (eg. csh, ksh, bash...) It doesn't mean that these text shells must be used. Not at all. Power users use them because they provide the most powerful interface to system related functions. There are linux systems that run on palm type computers, and have very minimal stylus based text interfaces, just like the usual palm operating systems. There are even linux systems that run on cell phones (motorola). If you go out and get one of the variants of linux that are meant for the unwashed masses, and fire it up, you will wonder what went wrong, why did windows come up instead of linux? Many of the linux variants are specifically configured to be rather indistinguishable from the Winshmoze gui. You'll have to ask someone else which ones they are, as I have no desire to go there. Infact, when running under the Wine interface, last I heard, all of the MSOffice stuff worked just fine. (As did visual basic, and visual C++.) Why you would want to run it under linux when OpenOffice is available, I really don't know. Dos is the kernel of windoze, linux is the kernel of the linux operating system. The kernel handles keyboard interrupts, mouse interrupts, reading and writing to the file system, memory management, the ethernet controllers, sound blaster cards, graphics cards, game controllers, tape drives, modems, disk caches, ppp, ... On top of the kernel are the various shells. Dos's command.com is a very rudimentary text shell. *nix's Bash and its brethern are extremely powerful text shells. Winblahs is a GUI shell. It has to run on top of DOS. X is a much more versatile GUI shell, one that doesn't have to be running on your local computer, but could be displaying the output/input of an application running on a remote server somewhere out on a network. On top of Winflows is a bunch of goodies that allow you to mess with the way the gui looks and feels. The same for X, only there are easily 100 times the variety out there... it seems like every other master's degree candidate in CS wrote his own shell that runs on top of the X windowing system. (fwm,twm,gnome, kde, afterdark, Nextstep, ...) You are selling *nix systems very short if you believe that they even need a command line interface... they don't. You are selling them very short if you believe that there is anything about the *nix kernel that doesn't lend itself to a GUI shell interface...there isn't. -Chuck Shiva wrote: KDE & the rest of *nix gui shells may look like win / mac shells, the problem is... *nix is not suited too well to GUI. Not' coz it's a bad thing - the philosophy behind the design is unsuitable for GUI. it needs much more than a front end - it needs - to be a different OS. How much time do you actually spend in a GUI? And, if a GUI is running, is the "console", or whatever the comand window is called, always open? As far as secetaries go, before computers came around, they made do with quill pens. Fortunately, they didn't have to deal with what's considered to be a de facto standard of tasks a secretary is responsible for today. There's no reason to boot into / run a GUI with win - strangely enough, everyone does... My ex (she's a fashion photographer) used to use my Sparc's just fine. When we split for a while she got an iMac, so when she moved back in I got stuck supporting it. So I feel your pain. It's not just the appliance mentality, but the "simple questions which deserve simple answers". Answers like "I'd have to explain achitecture, interrupt structure, shared DLL's etc., etc. simply sound like a brush-off... to read & convert |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
It goes the other way too. The port of GIMP for Windows take
for-effen-ever to load, and printing is kinda um.. gimped. But it just screams in RedHat Linux. The bottom line is that Windows just isn't there yet for office applications. william_b_noble wrote: before we all fall into the *nix propaganda, let's look at an experiment I tried - I made a simple diagram inside one of the open source office components that is like powerpoint - a page with two donuts on it, and then printed it. I had saved the file as a ".ppt" file so I could test it in both windows powerpoint and in this red hat linux environment - the page took over 5 minutes to print from the linux environment, the same file printed from PPT started printing almost instantaneously. Now, you can come up with many reasons why this should be so, including postscript versus HPGL6, and all of that, but the bottom line is that we aren't there yet for office aplications. I did find that internet browsing worked fine, but it took me forever to get my Intel print server recognized so that I could print properly - "Chuck Harris" wrote in message ... Whoa there dim! You're missing a really big part of the picture. All variants of Winblows are just a graphical interface sitting on top of a dos like operating system. NT and its bretheren are using a dos type operating system that is more like *nix in its kernel than it is like the old dos kernel. Because the real power users of computers all use *nix systems, *nix systems are usually set up in ways that sophisticated users like. And that means that there must be text shells easily available (eg. csh, ksh, bash...) It doesn't mean that these text shells must be used. Not at all. Power users use them because they provide the most powerful interface to system related functions. There are linux systems that run on palm type computers, and have very minimal stylus based text interfaces, just like the usual palm operating systems. There are even linux systems that run on cell phones (motorola). If you go out and get one of the variants of linux that are meant for the unwashed masses, and fire it up, you will wonder what went wrong, why did windows come up instead of linux? Many of the linux variants are specifically configured to be rather indistinguishable from the Winshmoze gui. You'll have to ask someone else which ones they are, as I have no desire to go there. Infact, when running under the Wine interface, last I heard, all of the MSOffice stuff worked just fine. (As did visual basic, and visual C++.) Why you would want to run it under linux when OpenOffice is available, I really don't know. Dos is the kernel of windoze, linux is the kernel of the linux operating system. The kernel handles keyboard interrupts, mouse interrupts, reading and writing to the file system, memory management, the ethernet controllers, sound blaster cards, graphics cards, game controllers, tape drives, modems, disk caches, ppp, ... On top of the kernel are the various shells. Dos's command.com is a very rudimentary text shell. *nix's Bash and its brethern are extremely powerful text shells. Winblahs is a GUI shell. It has to run on top of DOS. X is a much more versatile GUI shell, one that doesn't have to be running on your local computer, but could be displaying the output/input of an application running on a remote server somewhere out on a network. On top of Winflows is a bunch of goodies that allow you to mess with the way the gui looks and feels. The same for X, only there are easily 100 times the variety out there... it seems like every other master's degree candidate in CS wrote his own shell that runs on top of the X windowing system. (fwm,twm,gnome, kde, afterdark, Nextstep, ...) You are selling *nix systems very short if you believe that they even need a command line interface... they don't. You are selling them very short if you believe that there is anything about the *nix kernel that doesn't lend itself to a GUI shell interface...there isn't. -Chuck Shiva wrote: KDE & the rest of *nix gui shells may look like win / mac shells, the problem is... *nix is not suited too well to GUI. Not' coz it's a bad thing - the philosophy behind the design is unsuitable for GUI. it needs much more than a front end - it needs - to be a different OS. How much time do you actually spend in a GUI? And, if a GUI is running, is the "console", or whatever the comand window is called, always open? As far as secetaries go, before computers came around, they made do with quill pens. Fortunately, they didn't have to deal with what's considered to be a de facto standard of tasks a secretary is responsible for today. There's no reason to boot into / run a GUI with win - strangely enough, everyone does... My ex (she's a fashion photographer) used to use my Sparc's just fine. When we split for a while she got an iMac, so when she moved back in I got stuck supporting it. So I feel your pain. It's not just the appliance mentality, but the "simple questions which deserve simple answers". Answers like "I'd have to explain achitecture, interrupt structure, shared DLL's etc., etc. simply sound like a brush-off... to read & convert |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi William,
Unless you are talking about the same printer used on the two different systems, I don't see how this relates to much of anything. My linux box prints on my HP LaserJet 5M, which is a postscript printer just as fast as it does under windog 98. Linux uses postscript as its native print language. Any printer that isn't postscript must run through a converter program called ghostscript to convert the postscript source to whatever your printer likes. Conversion time depends on how much memory you have available, and how fast your processor is. As I understand it, Windog does the same thing, except it is encapsulated postscript that is the native print language. Did the file print true to the original? -Chuck william_b_noble wrote: before we all fall into the *nix propaganda, let's look at an experiment I tried - I made a simple diagram inside one of the open source office components that is like powerpoint - a page with two donuts on it, and then printed it. I had saved the file as a ".ppt" file so I could test it in both windows powerpoint and in this red hat linux environment - the page took over 5 minutes to print from the linux environment, the same file printed from PPT started printing almost instantaneously. Now, you can come up with many reasons why this should be so, including postscript versus HPGL6, and all of that, but the bottom line is that we aren't there yet for office aplications. I did find that internet browsing worked fine, but it took me forever to get my Intel print server recognized so that I could print properly - |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Fred Nachbaur" wrote in message . .. Shiva wrote: [....] KDE & the rest of *nix gui shells may look like win / mac shells, They can, but they don't have to. On one extreme is the minimalist (but still highly configurable) WM, which makes it possible to run a GUI environment even on slowish computers. The range continues through the more "fancy dancy" shells like Blackbox and Gnome (actually, Gnome was more of a spinoff of a suite of apps than a "ground-up" GUI). At the "top" (and I use that term loosely) is Enlightenment, which is a total showboat for the GUI-addicted; everything's textured and animated and bloated within an inch of its life. So, choose your weapon. Hi Fred - Since at this point "slowish computers" are Pent II's & III's (mine is but a slugly pent II chokin' on memory), slick clock-tick counting apps are ... of historical & masturbatory (for folks who write them) value only. Unless you're doing *heavy* graphics or playin' video games. I'd rather spend an extra $20 and buy a faster proc (actually, I spent $5 recently to get my PII up to a blazin' 400MHz), than run on a stripper shell. Gettin' old & lazy... KDE is somewhere in the middle, and is my choice for routine use because it can have a very similar look/feel to Windows (which I'm used to) and because there's very little that can't be done in the GUI, as implemented in Mandrake 9. Yeah, I used that and Gnome, both were nowhere near win functionality - console open all the time... Like win 3.1 real mode, the *nix GUIs are simply wrappers on an OS which was designed to run from a command (err... console?) line. Afterthoughts. the problem is... *nix is not suited too well to GUI. The same argument could be made for DOS or the NT kernel. DOS - for sure. bein' a sort-a unix - inspired OS, DOS was not suited for full-on GUI shells - like *nix, it wasn't the *kernel* that was the problem - IO.SYS was not what DOS was about - that was a tiny lil' shnod of DOS. DOS, like unix, was a big collection of applets, with switches, pipes, batch language, heavily reliant on BIOS calls - in short, a com. line OS. Early versions even came with asm & a linker, bot 100% switch dependant. It wasn't the kernel. It was the OS as a whole. NT? Win 2000's doin' just fine... The choice of Grannys everywhere... Not' coz it's a bad thing - the philosophy behind the design is unsuitable for GUI. it needs much more than a front end - it needs - to be a different OS. Why? I get the sense that it's been a long time since you've tried it. Linux and X are very much *evolving* technologies, unlike the microshaft stuff which is just one big cumulative patch. well, no. Microsoft stuff is *not* one cumulative patch. It's hip to dump on microsoft, but there's a huge difference 'tween patching code, and replacing componenets. Win 2000 is not a single, integral appy either - it's a bunch of stuff working (hopefully) together. Is the fact that the *nix kernels get updated at regular intervals make them "patches"? Just 'coz you don't need to re-compile win 2000 to install components doesn't mean that it's patches-on-top-of-patches. That was DOS. How much time do you actually spend in a GUI? Almost all of it. The exception is when running strictly command-line stuff like seti-at-home, or doing other operations that are possible in the GUI, but easier on the command line. Almost *everything* in *nix is easier on the console, most people who use unix for a livin' don't run GUIs - x-windows or some such for graphic / imaging / plotting, but no GUI. And, if a GUI is running, is the "console", or whatever the comand window is called, always open? No. The kernel is always running of course, just as it is in NT or DOS-based version of Winwoes. Opening a command window is almost the identical operation to opening a DOS box in windoze. You've missed the point, Fred - when I was in a *nix GUI, to get anything done, I had to go to the console window. Don't get me wrong - *nix is a great OS for some tasks - a true multi-user secure [if confiogured by someone who knows it] OS, but... for a personal desktop? I'll check in in another couple 'o years... Besides, *Ampex* came from Redwood, too... -dim [...] Cheers, Fred -- +--------------------------------------------+ | Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ | | Projects: http://dogstar.dantimax.dk | +--------------------------------------------+ |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fred, you're faster than I am (333 MHz Celeron/Pentium II)...get a network
card and DSL or a cable modem, at least 256K, and you'll run like a cat from a Doberman on the Net. If it's available and cheap, you'll thank yourself. "Shiva" wrote in message ... "Fred Nachbaur" wrote in message . .. Shiva wrote: [....] KDE & the rest of *nix gui shells may look like win / mac shells, They can, but they don't have to. On one extreme is the minimalist (but still highly configurable) WM, which makes it possible to run a GUI environment even on slowish computers. The range continues through the more "fancy dancy" shells like Blackbox and Gnome (actually, Gnome was more of a spinoff of a suite of apps than a "ground-up" GUI). At the "top" (and I use that term loosely) is Enlightenment, which is a total showboat for the GUI-addicted; everything's textured and animated and bloated within an inch of its life. So, choose your weapon. Hi Fred - Since at this point "slowish computers" are Pent II's & III's (mine is but a slugly pent II chokin' on memory), slick clock-tick counting apps are ... of historical & masturbatory (for folks who write them) value only. Unless you're doing *heavy* graphics or playin' video games. I'd rather spend an extra $20 and buy a faster proc (actually, I spent $5 recently to get my PII up to a blazin' 400MHz), than run on a stripper shell. Gettin' old & lazy... KDE is somewhere in the middle, and is my choice for routine use because it can have a very similar look/feel to Windows (which I'm used to) and because there's very little that can't be done in the GUI, as implemented in Mandrake 9. Yeah, I used that and Gnome, both were nowhere near win functionality - console open all the time... Like win 3.1 real mode, the *nix GUIs are simply wrappers on an OS which was designed to run from a command (err... console?) line. Afterthoughts. the problem is... *nix is not suited too well to GUI. The same argument could be made for DOS or the NT kernel. DOS - for sure. bein' a sort-a unix - inspired OS, DOS was not suited for full-on GUI shells - like *nix, it wasn't the *kernel* that was the problem - IO.SYS was not what DOS was about - that was a tiny lil' shnod of DOS. DOS, like unix, was a big collection of applets, with switches, pipes, batch language, heavily reliant on BIOS calls - in short, a com. line OS. Early versions even came with asm & a linker, bot 100% switch dependant. It wasn't the kernel. It was the OS as a whole. NT? Win 2000's doin' just fine... The choice of Grannys everywhere... Not' coz it's a bad thing - the philosophy behind the design is unsuitable for GUI. it needs much more than a front end - it needs - to be a different OS. Why? I get the sense that it's been a long time since you've tried it. Linux and X are very much *evolving* technologies, unlike the microshaft stuff which is just one big cumulative patch. well, no. Microsoft stuff is *not* one cumulative patch. It's hip to dump on microsoft, but there's a huge difference 'tween patching code, and replacing componenets. Win 2000 is not a single, integral appy either - it's a bunch of stuff working (hopefully) together. Is the fact that the *nix kernels get updated at regular intervals make them "patches"? Just 'coz you don't need to re-compile win 2000 to install components doesn't mean that it's patches-on-top-of-patches. That was DOS. How much time do you actually spend in a GUI? Almost all of it. The exception is when running strictly command-line stuff like seti-at-home, or doing other operations that are possible in the GUI, but easier on the command line. Almost *everything* in *nix is easier on the console, most people who use unix for a livin' don't run GUIs - x-windows or some such for graphic / imaging / plotting, but no GUI. And, if a GUI is running, is the "console", or whatever the comand window is called, always open? No. The kernel is always running of course, just as it is in NT or DOS-based version of Winwoes. Opening a command window is almost the identical operation to opening a DOS box in windoze. You've missed the point, Fred - when I was in a *nix GUI, to get anything done, I had to go to the console window. Don't get me wrong - *nix is a great OS for some tasks - a true multi-user secure [if confiogured by someone who knows it] OS, but... for a personal desktop? I'll check in in another couple 'o years... Besides, *Ampex* came from Redwood, too... -dim [...] Cheers, Fred -- +--------------------------------------------+ | Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ | | Projects: http://dogstar.dantimax.dk | +--------------------------------------------+ |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:45:10 +0000, the highly esteemed Shiva enlightened
us with these pearls of wisdom: You've missed the point, Fred - when I was in a *nix GUI, to get anything done, I had to go to the console window. Don't get me wrong - *nix is a great OS for some tasks - a true multi-user secure [if confiogured by someone who knows it] OS, but... for a personal desktop? I'll check in in another couple 'o years... Besides, *Ampex* came from Redwood, too... -dim Once again, I agree with Fred - it has been a while since you used either Gnome or KDE. On Red Hat 9, you dont have to touch a command line to do ANYTHING (I still use the command line for messing with files and such - it is faster than ANY GUI interface). Also, you keep saying the GUI for *NIX is an afterthought. It isn't ANY different from Windows. The entire Windows GUI is composed of executables and DLLs which are seperate from the kernel. BTW, for those who were saying Windows is based in UNIX, its not. Win95 was based on DOS, while WinNT was based on VMS. With WinNT, they matched (as closely as possible) the Windows 95 API, so that most programs could run on either. Win 98 and ME were sort of cross-pollinations of NT and Win95, while Win2K is pure NT with additions. WinXP is totally NT style, again with additions. In any case, the GUI is not part of the core kernel - it just seems that way because, unlike *NIX, it is virtually impossible to administer or use Windows with a CLI. -- Greg --The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Greg Pierce" wrote in message news  On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:45:10 +0000, the highly esteemed Shiva enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom: You've missed the point, Fred - when I was in a *nix GUI, to get anything done, I had to go to the console window. Don't get me wrong - *nix is a great OS for some tasks - a true multi-user secure [if confiogured by someone who knows it] OS, but... for a personal desktop? I'll check in in another couple 'o years... Besides, *Ampex* came from Redwood, too... -dim Once again, I agree with Fred - it has been a while since you used either Gnome or KDE. On Red Hat 9, you dont have to touch a command line to do ANYTHING (I still use the command line for messing with files and such - it is faster than ANY GUI interface). Also, you keep saying the GUI for *NIX is an afterthought. It isn't ANY different from Windows. The entire Windows GUI is composed of executables and DLLs which are seperate from the kernel. BTW, for those who were saying Windows is based in UNIX, its not. Win95 was based on DOS, while WinNT was based on VMS. With WinNT, they matched (as closely as possible) the Windows 95 API, so that most programs could run on either. Win 98 and ME were sort of cross-pollinations of NT and Win95, while Win2K is pure NT with additions. WinXP is totally NT style, again with additions. In any case, the GUI is not part of the core kernel - it just seems that way because, unlike *NIX, it is virtually impossible to administer or use Windows with a CLI. -- Greg --The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux. And my hardware was basically making 98SE twitch until I got the situation figured out. But it's STILL doing okay as always. What is binary (or hex) for 73? |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chuck Harris" wrote in message ... Whoa there dim! You're missing a really big part of the picture. All variants of Winblows are just a graphical interface sitting on top of a dos like operating system. NT and its bretheren are using a dos type operating system that is more like *nix in its kernel than it is like the old dos kernel. Well... No. Unless your definition of "DOS-like" is all - inclusive. NT has nothing to do with DOS - IO.sys is simply not there. DOS apps simply won't run on early NT - TSR's won't load, nada. A whole new ball o' wax. On 2000, DOS apps run in a wrapper, and fairly badly The file system's different... what makes you say it's "DOS-like"? Because the real power users of computers all use *nix systems, *nix systems are usually set up in ways that sophisticated users like. Real power users all *used* to use unix systems, mainly 'coz it was around for long enough to be the de facto *multi-user* OS, most mathy /sciency apps were written for it, mainframmes and minis ran it...+cdddddddddddddddddddddddddd (sorry, mykitten desided to add his 2cents) And still do. The stress is on "multi-user", though. Not "desktop". And that means that there must be text shells easily available (eg. csh, ksh, bash...) It doesn't mean that these text shells must be used. Not at all. Power users use them because they provide the most powerful interface to system related functions. The thing is, unless one is willing to learn one of those shells (not too bad), runing *nix is silly - from a user's perspective, that's where *nix's thrills are. Not that "power users" (what that be? A VIP all-access / priority pass?) have an intrinsic dislike for GUI's (well... let's say not most power users), just GUI's that slow you down & seem pointless. There are linux systems that run on palm type computers, and have very minimal stylus based text interfaces, just like the usual palm operating systems. There are even linux systems that run on cell phones (motorola). Yeah, i know, unix is real flexible - like an erector set. No need to screw the entire set together - just the chunks you need. If you go out and get one of the variants of linux that are meant for the unwashed masses, and fire it up, you will wonder what went wrong, why did windows come up instead of linux? Many of the linux variants are specifically configured to be rather indistinguishable from the Winshmoze gui. You'll have to ask someone else which ones they are, as I have no desire to go there. There's a *reason* why you don't want to go there - I'm not bashing *nix - even i'm not that silly. I'm simply saying it's a lousy desktop GUI OS. Kind'o like pedaling a Hardly-Ableson.... Infact, when running under the Wine interface, last I heard, all of the MSOffice stuff worked just fine. (As did visual basic, and visual C++.) Why you would want to run it under linux when OpenOffice is available, I really don't know. Why one would want to run *nix to run win apps when Win is available is beyond me too... Dos is the kernel of windoze, linux is the kernel of the linux operating system. Dos is *not* the kernel of windoze, not even the kernel of win 95. The kernel handles keyboard interrupts, mouse interrupts, reading and writing to the file system, memory management, the ethernet controllers, sound blaster cards, graphics cards, game controllers, tape drives, modems, disk caches, ppp, ... In Dos it was IO.SYS. A few misguided souls decided that IO.SYS is under win 2000, 'coz it exists on the HD. It's there to, basically, play DOS games, which require direct access to keyboard, mouse, graphics card, and the drives. On top of the kernel are the various shells. Dos's command.com is a very rudimentary text shell. *nix's Bash and its brethern are extremely powerful text shells. Winblahs is a GUI shell. It has to run on top of DOS. Chuck, see above... you can delete IO.SYS. X is a much more versatile GUI shell, one that doesn't have to be running on your local computer, but could be displaying the output/input of an application running on a remote server somewhere out on a network. On top of Winflows is a bunch of goodies that allow you to mess with the way the gui looks and feels. The same for X, only there are easily 100 times the variety out there... it seems like every other master's degree candidate in CS wrote his own shell that runs on top of the X windowing system. (fwm,twm,gnome, kde, afterdark, Nextstep, ...) I know, i know. They all have that homebbrew feel... You are selling *nix systems very short if you believe that they even need a command line interface... they don't. And an editor doesn't need a keyboard - you can just use the mouse. The question is ... Would you want that? You are selling them very short if you believe that there is anything about the *nix kernel that doesn't lend itself to a GUI shell interface...there isn't. A *nix OS is much more than the kernel - just like a caddy is more than an engine. Yes, you can put the same motor in an Allard, and make a sports car (of a sort...), does that imply that a caddy is a good base for a racer? -dim -Chuck Shiva wrote: KDE & the rest of *nix gui shells may look like win / mac shells, the problem is... *nix is not suited too well to GUI. Not' coz it's a bad thing - the philosophy behind the design is unsuitable for GUI. it needs much more than a front end - it needs - to be a different OS. How much time do you actually spend in a GUI? And, if a GUI is running, is the "console", or whatever the comand window is called, always open? As far as secetaries go, before computers came around, they made do with quill pens. Fortunately, they didn't have to deal with what's considered to be a de facto standard of tasks a secretary is responsible for today. There's no reason to boot into / run a GUI with win - strangely enough, everyone does... My ex (she's a fashion photographer) used to use my Sparc's just fine. When we split for a while she got an iMac, so when she moved back in I got stuck supporting it. So I feel your pain. It's not just the appliance mentality, but the "simple questions which deserve simple answers". Answers like "I'd have to explain achitecture, interrupt structure, shared DLL's etc., etc. simply sound like a brush-off... to read & convert |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whoa there dim! You're missing a really big part of the picture. All
variants of Winblows are just a graphical interface sitting on top of a dos like operating system. NT and its bretheren are using a dos- type operating system that is more like *nix in its kernel than it is like the old dos kernel. Absolutely untrue. NT and its later versions were written from scratch, without the DOS base. That's why it's called "new technology." NT mimics DOS under some conditions, such as running command-line based software, such as the ftp utility. A window that looks and acts like DOS is displayed, but it's not DOS. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Greg Pierce" wrote in message news On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:45:10 +0000, the highly esteemed Shiva enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom: You've missed the point, Fred - when I was in a *nix GUI, to get anything done, I had to go to the console window. Don't get me wrong - *nix is a great OS for some tasks - a true multi-user secure [if confiogured by someone who knows it] OS, but... for a personal desktop? I'll check in in another couple 'o years... Besides, *Ampex* came from Redwood, too... -dim Once again, I agree with Fred - it has been a while since you used either Gnome or KDE. On Red Hat 9, you dont have to touch a command line to do ANYTHING (I still use the command line for messing with files and such - it is faster than ANY GUI interface). Also, you keep saying the GUI for *NIX is an afterthought. It isn't ANY different from Windows. The entire Windows GUI is composed of executables and DLLs which are seperate from the kernel. HI Greg - Of course the GUI shell in win is not a part of the kernel - Otherwise "boot gui = 0" wouldn't work... Which in no way implies that, while windoze wa created with GUI in mind, *nix was (and still is) primarily a command-line OS. BTW, for those who were saying Windows is based in UNIX, its not. Win95 was based on DOS, while WinNT was based on VMS. With WinNT, they matched (as closely as possible) the Windows 95 API, so that most programs could run on either. Win 98 and ME were sort of cross-pollinations of NT and Win95, while Win2K is pure NT with additions. WinXP is totally NT style, again with additions. In any case, the GUI is not part of the core kernel - it just seems that way because, unlike *NIX, it is virtually impossible to administer or use Windows with a CLI. well, that's 'coz win is *designed* to be run with a GUI shell. There's no reason you can't write applets, or even huge apps, to run with command line. To shoot myself in the foot, and weaken my "GUI" argument, i still have the command prompt (startin with "doskey", to make things easier) right on the toolbar - most networking stuff is so much simpler that way... -dim -- Greg --The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven Dinius" wrote in message ... "Greg Pierce" wrote in message news On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:45:10 +0000, the highly esteemed Shiva enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom: You've missed the point, Fred - when I was in a *nix GUI, to get anything done, I had to go to the console window. Don't get me wrong - *nix is a great OS for some tasks - a true multi-user secure [if confiogured by someone who knows it] OS, but... for a personal desktop? I'll check in in another couple 'o years... Besides, *Ampex* came from Redwood, too... -dim Once again, I agree with Fred - it has been a while since you used either Gnome or KDE. On Red Hat 9, you dont have to touch a command line to do ANYTHING (I still use the command line for messing with files and such - it is faster than ANY GUI interface). Also, you keep saying the GUI for *NIX is an afterthought. It isn't ANY different from Windows. The entire Windows GUI is composed of executables and DLLs which are seperate from the kernel. BTW, for those who were saying Windows is based in UNIX, its not. Win95 was based on DOS, while WinNT was based on VMS. With WinNT, they matched (as closely as possible) the Windows 95 API, so that most programs could run on either. Win 98 and ME were sort of cross-pollinations of NT and Win95, while Win2K is pure NT with additions. WinXP is totally NT style, again with additions. In any case, the GUI is not part of the core kernel - it just seems that way because, unlike *NIX, it is virtually impossible to administer or use Windows with a CLI. -- Greg --The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux. And my hardware was basically making 98SE twitch until I got the situation figured out. But it's STILL doing okay as always. What is binary (or hex) for 73? Click Start- programs- accessories - calculator-view-scientific. Tada! -dim |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Political | Pro Audio | |||
| Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
