I feel unclean

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

I feel unclean

The Real Bev
I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was curious
about whether it would speed up the slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill
facebook scrolling as well as making it possible to view facebook videos.

I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't help
with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing and 57
(which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and Chrome for
whatever the FFs won't do.

Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only 250GB.

My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external card.
  Plenty of room there too.

I'm getting sloppy.

--
Cheers, Bev
    Some people are like Slinkies... Not really good for
    anything, but they still bring a smile to your face
    when you push them down a flight of stairs.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

Sailfish-4
My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
11/21/2017 11:32 AM:

> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was curious
> about whether it would speed up the slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill
> facebook scrolling as well as making it possible to view facebook videos.
>
> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't help
> with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing and 57
> (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and Chrome for
> whatever the FFs won't do.
>
> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only 250GB.
>
> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external card.
>  Plenty of room there too.
>
> I'm getting sloppy.
>
You, like many of us, are still living in Bill "640K Ought to be Enough
for Anyone" Gates 1989 universe.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

Balaco
Em 21-11-2017 18:20, Sailfish escreveu:

> My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
> 11/21/2017 11:32 AM:
>> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was curious
>> about whether it would speed up the slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill
>> facebook scrolling as well as making it possible to view facebook videos.
>>
>> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't help
>> with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing and 57
>> (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and Chrome for
>> whatever the FFs won't do.
>>
>> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
>> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only 250GB.
>>
>> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external
>> card.  Plenty of room there too.
>>
>> I'm getting sloppy.
>>
> You, like many of us, are still living in Bill "640K Ought to be Enough
> for Anyone" Gates 1989 universe.
>

Lets not forget that 640KiB of code can do a *lot* of things today.
Cheap does not mean that we cannot make good uses for every byte.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

The Real Bev
In reply to this post by Sailfish-4
On 11/21/2017 12:20 PM, Sailfish wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
> 11/21/2017 11:32 AM:
>> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was curious
>> about whether it would speed up the slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill
>> facebook scrolling as well as making it possible to view facebook videos.
>>
>> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't help
>> with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing and 57
>> (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and Chrome for
>> whatever the FFs won't do.
>>
>> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
>> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only 250GB.
>>
>> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external card.
>>  Plenty of room there too.
>>
>> I'm getting sloppy.
>>
> You, like many of us, are still living in Bill "640K Ought to be Enough
> for Anyone" Gates 1989 universe.

When we got our first computer in 1977 Allen had to write his own BIOS.
  I remember him waking me up in the middle of the night to tell me he'd
just saved four bytes.

All my life I've hated waste;  it's difficult to switch into the
'profligate' mode.

Somebody mentioned that 57 is faster because it's a resource hog.  Sure
enough, my 'load' graphic is twice the size when I'm running 57 vs 52.
Not that it matters, of course.  It's not like I'm compiling in the
background or anything...

--
Cheers, Bev
    "We thought about one of those discount store caskets, but,
     frankly,  we were worried about the quality."
                                        -- mortuary commercial

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

Sailfish-4
In reply to this post by Balaco
My bloviated meandering follows what Balaco graced us with on 11/21/2017
12:51 PM:

> Em 21-11-2017 18:20, Sailfish escreveu:
>> My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
>> 11/21/2017 11:32 AM:
>>> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was curious
>>> about whether it would speed up the slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill
>>> facebook scrolling as well as making it possible to view facebook
>>> videos.
>>>
>>> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't help
>>> with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing and 57
>>> (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and Chrome for
>>> whatever the FFs won't do.
>>>
>>> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
>>> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only 250GB.
>>>
>>> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external
>>> card.  Plenty of room there too.
>>>
>>> I'm getting sloppy.
>>>
>> You, like many of us, are still living in Bill "640K Ought to be Enough
>> for Anyone" Gates 1989 universe.
>>
>
> Lets not forget that 640KiB of code can do a *lot* of things today.
> Cheap does not mean that we cannot make good uses for every byte.

True that, but when everyone is using HOLs (Java, C++, ...) along with
frameworks (jQuery, bootstrap, React, ...), it's kinda of an abstract
concept anymore, meThinks.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

Sailfish-4
In reply to this post by The Real Bev
My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
11/21/2017 1:25 PM:

> On 11/21/2017 12:20 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>> My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
>> 11/21/2017 11:32 AM:
>>> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was curious
>>> about whether it would speed up the slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill
>>> facebook scrolling as well as making it possible to view facebook
>>> videos.
>>>
>>> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't help
>>> with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing and 57
>>> (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and Chrome for
>>> whatever the FFs won't do.
>>>
>>> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
>>> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only 250GB.
>>>
>>> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external card.
>>>  Plenty of room there too.
>>>
>>> I'm getting sloppy.
>>>
>> You, like many of us, are still living in Bill "640K Ought to be Enough
>> for Anyone" Gates 1989 universe.
>
> When we got our first computer in 1977 Allen had to write his own BIOS.
>  I remember him waking me up in the middle of the night to tell me he'd
> just saved four bytes.
>
> All my life I've hated waste;  it's difficult to switch into the
> 'profligate' mode.
>
> Somebody mentioned that 57 is faster because it's a resource hog.  Sure
> enough, my 'load' graphic is twice the size when I'm running 57 vs 52.
> Not that it matters, of course.  It's not like I'm compiling in the
> background or anything...
>
heh

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by The Real Bev
On 11/21/2017 1:32 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was curious
> about whether it would speed up the slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill
> facebook scrolling as well as making it possible to view facebook videos.
>
> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't help
> with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing and 57
> (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and Chrome for
> whatever the FFs won't do.
>
> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only 250GB.
>
> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external card.
>   Plenty of room there too.
>
> I'm getting sloppy.
>
I have a 128GB iPhone 7.  Can't imagine needing more than that on a
phone, but then next week, that might change, the way things work in
this business.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Sailfish-4
On 11/21/2017 2:20 PM, Sailfish wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
> 11/21/2017 11:32 AM:
>> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was curious
>> about whether it would speed up the slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill
>> facebook scrolling as well as making it possible to view facebook videos.
>>
>> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't help
>> with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing and 57
>> (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and Chrome for
>> whatever the FFs won't do.
>>
>> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
>> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only 250GB.
>>
>> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external
>> card.  Plenty of room there too.
>>
>> I'm getting sloppy.
>>
> You, like many of us, are still living in Bill "640K Ought to be Enough
> for Anyone" Gates 1989 universe.
>
Not me.  Still back with the 48K with 192K floppies.  Grin.  And I
thought THAT was lots of RAM and disk space.  First computers I operated
for the USAF had 4.8K of RAM, and card storage!   But the OS was only
256bytes!  The good old days.
Modems operated at a blazing 300 baud, which yielded about 30
characters/second.  Now I get 8MB/S!  Progress!

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

RAV-2
On 11/21/2017 4:40 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 11/21/2017 2:20 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>> My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
>> 11/21/2017 11:32 AM:
>>> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was curious
>>> about whether it would speed up the slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill
>>> facebook scrolling as well as making it possible to view facebook
>>> videos.
>>>
>>> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't
>>> help with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing and
>>> 57 (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and Chrome
>>> for whatever the FFs won't do.
>>>
>>> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
>>> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only 250GB.
>>>
>>> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external
>>> card.  Plenty of room there too.
>>>
>>> I'm getting sloppy.
>>>
>> You, like many of us, are still living in Bill "640K Ought to be
>> Enough for Anyone" Gates 1989 universe.
>>
> Not me.  Still back with the 48K with 192K floppies.  Grin.  And I
> thought THAT was lots of RAM and disk space.  First computers I operated
> for the USAF had 4.8K of RAM, and card storage!   But the OS was only
> 256bytes!  The good old days.
> Modems operated at a blazing 300 baud, which yielded about 30
> characters/second.  Now I get 8MB/S!  Progress!
>

Back when we used acoustic couplers in the early '70s (modems didn't
exist because at that time the Bell System didn't allow anything to be
direct connected to their network), the stated rate was 110 baud (about
10 cps).  But since we were using IBM 2741 terminals (which were
basically souped up IBM Selectric typewriters), much of the time there
was an effective rate of about 3-4 characters per second, because it
took one "character" transmission to turn the typeball 180 degrees to
prepare to print an upper-case (or special) character, one to actually
print that character, and another "character" to turn the typeball back
to the lower-case characters.  Plus, a lot of "idle" characters had to
be inserted when a line was done printing, so that the typeball didn't
start printing the next line while it was returning to the left margin,
slowing things down even further!  When 30 cps dot-matrix terminals
arrived, we thought we were in heaven.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

Terry
In reply to this post by The Real Bev
On 11/21/2017 11:32 AM On a whim, The Real Bev pounded out on the keyboard

> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was curious
> about whether it would speed up the slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill
> facebook scrolling as well as making it possible to view facebook videos.
>
> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't help
> with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing and 57
> (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and Chrome for
> whatever the FFs won't do.
>
> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only 250GB.
>
> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external card.
>    Plenty of room there too.
>
> I'm getting sloppy.
>

Just remember that "lots of backups" on a single drive all go away when
the physical drive fails.  As long as you have at least 2 rotating
external drives backing up, you're in good shape.

Terry
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

The Real Bev
In reply to this post by RAV-2
On 11/21/2017 03:08 PM, Rav wrote:

> On 11/21/2017 4:40 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 11/21/2017 2:20 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
>>> 11/21/2017 11:32 AM:
>>>> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was curious
>>>> about whether it would speed up the slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill
>>>> facebook scrolling as well as making it possible to view facebook
>>>> videos.
>>>>
>>>> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't
>>>> help with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing and
>>>> 57 (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and Chrome
>>>> for whatever the FFs won't do.
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
>>>> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only 250GB.
>>>>
>>>> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external
>>>> card.  Plenty of room there too.
>>>>
>>>> I'm getting sloppy.
>>>>
>>> You, like many of us, are still living in Bill "640K Ought to be
>>> Enough for Anyone" Gates 1989 universe.
>>>
>> Not me.  Still back with the 48K with 192K floppies.  Grin.  And I
>> thought THAT was lots of RAM and disk space.  First computers I operated
>> for the USAF had 4.8K of RAM, and card storage!   But the OS was only
>> 256bytes!  The good old days.
>> Modems operated at a blazing 300 baud, which yielded about 30
>> characters/second.  Now I get 8MB/S!  Progress!
>
> Back when we used acoustic couplers in the early '70s (modems didn't
> exist because at that time the Bell System didn't allow anything to be
> direct connected to their network), the stated rate was 110 baud (about
> 10 cps).

I have two of those.  Virgin, made by Xerox, still in their boxes.
Lost, of course.

> But since we were using IBM 2741 terminals (which were
> basically souped up IBM Selectric typewriters), much of the time there
> was an effective rate of about 3-4 characters per second, because it
> took one "character" transmission to turn the typeball 180 degrees to
> prepare to print an upper-case (or special) character, one to actually
> print that character, and another "character" to turn the typeball back
> to the lower-case characters.  Plus, a lot of "idle" characters had to
> be inserted when a line was done printing, so that the typeball didn't
> start printing the next line while it was returning to the left margin,
> slowing things down even further!  When 30 cps dot-matrix terminals
> arrived, we thought we were in heaven.

Not to mention PRINTERS WITH DESCENDERS!!!!

We need to read about stuff like this to remind us that not everything
was better back in the Good Old Days.  OTOH, how much cool stuff makes
up for the fact that The Sunday Drive is no longer pleasant?

--
Cheers, Bev
    Politicians are stupid like cats are stupid.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by RAV-2
On 11/21/2017 5:08 PM, Rav wrote:

> On 11/21/2017 4:40 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 11/21/2017 2:20 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
>>> 11/21/2017 11:32 AM:
>>>> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was curious
>>>> about whether it would speed up the slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill
>>>> facebook scrolling as well as making it possible to view facebook
>>>> videos.
>>>>
>>>> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't
>>>> help with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing
>>>> and 57 (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and
>>>> Chrome for whatever the FFs won't do.
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
>>>> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only 250GB.
>>>>
>>>> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external
>>>> card.  Plenty of room there too.
>>>>
>>>> I'm getting sloppy.
>>>>
>>> You, like many of us, are still living in Bill "640K Ought to be
>>> Enough for Anyone" Gates 1989 universe.
>>>
>> Not me.  Still back with the 48K with 192K floppies.  Grin.  And I
>> thought THAT was lots of RAM and disk space.  First computers I
>> operated for the USAF had 4.8K of RAM, and card storage!   But the OS
>> was only 256bytes!  The good old days.
>> Modems operated at a blazing 300 baud, which yielded about 30
>> characters/second.  Now I get 8MB/S!  Progress!
>>
>
> Back when we used acoustic couplers in the early '70s (modems didn't
> exist because at that time the Bell System didn't allow anything to be
> direct connected to their network), the stated rate was 110 baud (about
> 10 cps).  But since we were using IBM 2741 terminals (which were
> basically souped up IBM Selectric typewriters), much of the time there
> was an effective rate of about 3-4 characters per second, because it
> took one "character" transmission to turn the typeball 180 degrees to
> prepare to print an upper-case (or special) character, one to actually
> print that character, and another "character" to turn the typeball back
> to the lower-case characters.  Plus, a lot of "idle" characters had to
> be inserted when a line was done printing, so that the typeball didn't
> start printing the next line while it was returning to the left margin,
> slowing things down even further!  When 30 cps dot-matrix terminals
> arrived, we thought we were in heaven.

Lots of amusing things from back in those days.  Consider the amazing
processing power, and memory, and storage of my iPhone 7, compared to
the computers that NASA used to send the Apollo missions to the moon!
Mind boggling.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

Sailfish-4
My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
11/21/2017 11:57 PM:

> On 11/21/2017 5:08 PM, Rav wrote:
>> On 11/21/2017 4:40 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2017 2:20 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
>>>> 11/21/2017 11:32 AM:
>>>>> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was
>>>>> curious about whether it would speed up the
>>>>> slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill facebook scrolling as well as making
>>>>> it possible to view facebook videos.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't
>>>>> help with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing
>>>>> and 57 (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and
>>>>> Chrome for whatever the FFs won't do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
>>>>> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only
>>>>> 250GB.
>>>>>
>>>>> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external
>>>>> card.  Plenty of room there too.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm getting sloppy.
>>>>>
>>>> You, like many of us, are still living in Bill "640K Ought to be
>>>> Enough for Anyone" Gates 1989 universe.
>>>>
>>> Not me.  Still back with the 48K with 192K floppies.  Grin.  And I
>>> thought THAT was lots of RAM and disk space.  First computers I
>>> operated for the USAF had 4.8K of RAM, and card storage!   But the OS
>>> was only 256bytes!  The good old days.
>>> Modems operated at a blazing 300 baud, which yielded about 30
>>> characters/second.  Now I get 8MB/S!  Progress!
>>>
>>
>> Back when we used acoustic couplers in the early '70s (modems didn't
>> exist because at that time the Bell System didn't allow anything to be
>> direct connected to their network), the stated rate was 110 baud
>> (about 10 cps).  But since we were using IBM 2741 terminals (which
>> were basically souped up IBM Selectric typewriters), much of the time
>> there was an effective rate of about 3-4 characters per second,
>> because it took one "character" transmission to turn the typeball 180
>> degrees to prepare to print an upper-case (or special) character, one
>> to actually print that character, and another "character" to turn the
>> typeball back to the lower-case characters.  Plus, a lot of "idle"
>> characters had to be inserted when a line was done printing, so that
>> the typeball didn't start printing the next line while it was
>> returning to the left margin, slowing things down even further!  When
>> 30 cps dot-matrix terminals arrived, we thought we were in heaven.
>
> Lots of amusing things from back in those days.  Consider the amazing
> processing power, and memory, and storage of my iPhone 7, compared to
> the computers that NASA used to send the Apollo missions to the moon!
> Mind boggling.
>
It would be an interesting comparison to test. The inertial navigation
system alone, as I understand it, was heavily hardware-based, as were
many of the other systems. Could a smartphone of today's processing
power handle a moonshot using mostly its RISC processor(s)?

I'm dubious.

However, that's not saying that today's smartphones processing power
isn't phenomenal, they are and I stand in awe whenever I stare at mine
in reverie.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

Ron Hunter
On 11/22/2017 10:57 AM, Sailfish wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 11/21/2017 11:57 PM:
>> On 11/21/2017 5:08 PM, Rav wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2017 4:40 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2017 2:20 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
>>>>> 11/21/2017 11:32 AM:
>>>>>> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was
>>>>>> curious about whether it would speed up the
>>>>>> slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill facebook scrolling as well as making
>>>>>> it possible to view facebook videos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't
>>>>>> help with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing
>>>>>> and 57 (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and
>>>>>> Chrome for whatever the FFs won't do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
>>>>>> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only
>>>>>> 250GB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external
>>>>>> card.  Plenty of room there too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm getting sloppy.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You, like many of us, are still living in Bill "640K Ought to be
>>>>> Enough for Anyone" Gates 1989 universe.
>>>>>
>>>> Not me.  Still back with the 48K with 192K floppies.  Grin.  And I
>>>> thought THAT was lots of RAM and disk space.  First computers I
>>>> operated for the USAF had 4.8K of RAM, and card storage!   But the
>>>> OS was only 256bytes!  The good old days.
>>>> Modems operated at a blazing 300 baud, which yielded about 30
>>>> characters/second.  Now I get 8MB/S!  Progress!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Back when we used acoustic couplers in the early '70s (modems didn't
>>> exist because at that time the Bell System didn't allow anything to
>>> be direct connected to their network), the stated rate was 110 baud
>>> (about 10 cps).  But since we were using IBM 2741 terminals (which
>>> were basically souped up IBM Selectric typewriters), much of the time
>>> there was an effective rate of about 3-4 characters per second,
>>> because it took one "character" transmission to turn the typeball 180
>>> degrees to prepare to print an upper-case (or special) character, one
>>> to actually print that character, and another "character" to turn the
>>> typeball back to the lower-case characters.  Plus, a lot of "idle"
>>> characters had to be inserted when a line was done printing, so that
>>> the typeball didn't start printing the next line while it was
>>> returning to the left margin, slowing things down even further!  When
>>> 30 cps dot-matrix terminals arrived, we thought we were in heaven.
>>
>> Lots of amusing things from back in those days.  Consider the amazing
>> processing power, and memory, and storage of my iPhone 7, compared to
>> the computers that NASA used to send the Apollo missions to the moon!
>> Mind boggling.
>>
> It would be an interesting comparison to test. The inertial navigation
> system alone, as I understand it, was heavily hardware-based, as were
> many of the other systems. Could a smartphone of today's processing
> power handle a moonshot using mostly its RISC processor(s)?
>
> I'm dubious.
>
> However, that's not saying that today's smartphones processing power
> isn't phenomenal, they are and I stand in awe whenever I stare at mine
> in reverie.
>
Considering that the memory cycle times, amount of memory, and online
storage, and that many of today's smartphones have from 6 to 8
processors, I am quite sure they could run rings and circles around
anything available in 1969.  I was in commercial data processing at the
time, and we were using 16k memory IBM 1440 machines!  Later got an IBM
360/30, which had 64K of memory, with a cycle time of 2ms!  Yep, I think
todays smartphones could handle it.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

Sailfish-4
My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
11/22/2017 10:52 AM:

> On 11/22/2017 10:57 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
>> 11/21/2017 11:57 PM:
>>> On 11/21/2017 5:08 PM, Rav wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2017 4:40 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>> On 11/21/2017 2:20 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with
>>>>>> on 11/21/2017 11:32 AM:
>>>>>>> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was
>>>>>>> curious about whether it would speed up the
>>>>>>> slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill facebook scrolling as well as making
>>>>>>> it possible to view facebook videos.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it doesn't
>>>>>>> help with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general browsing
>>>>>>> and 57 (which I will hold my nose and allow to update) for FB and
>>>>>>> Chrome for whatever the FFs won't do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
>>>>>>> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only
>>>>>>> 250GB.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB external
>>>>>>> card.  Plenty of room there too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm getting sloppy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You, like many of us, are still living in Bill "640K Ought to be
>>>>>> Enough for Anyone" Gates 1989 universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not me.  Still back with the 48K with 192K floppies.  Grin.  And I
>>>>> thought THAT was lots of RAM and disk space.  First computers I
>>>>> operated for the USAF had 4.8K of RAM, and card storage!   But the
>>>>> OS was only 256bytes!  The good old days.
>>>>> Modems operated at a blazing 300 baud, which yielded about 30
>>>>> characters/second.  Now I get 8MB/S!  Progress!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Back when we used acoustic couplers in the early '70s (modems didn't
>>>> exist because at that time the Bell System didn't allow anything to
>>>> be direct connected to their network), the stated rate was 110 baud
>>>> (about 10 cps).  But since we were using IBM 2741 terminals (which
>>>> were basically souped up IBM Selectric typewriters), much of the
>>>> time there was an effective rate of about 3-4 characters per second,
>>>> because it took one "character" transmission to turn the typeball
>>>> 180 degrees to prepare to print an upper-case (or special)
>>>> character, one to actually print that character, and another
>>>> "character" to turn the typeball back to the lower-case characters.  
>>>> Plus, a lot of "idle" characters had to be inserted when a line was
>>>> done printing, so that the typeball didn't start printing the next
>>>> line while it was returning to the left margin, slowing things down
>>>> even further!  When 30 cps dot-matrix terminals arrived, we thought
>>>> we were in heaven.
>>>
>>> Lots of amusing things from back in those days.  Consider the amazing
>>> processing power, and memory, and storage of my iPhone 7, compared to
>>> the computers that NASA used to send the Apollo missions to the moon!
>>> Mind boggling.
>>>
>> It would be an interesting comparison to test. The inertial navigation
>> system alone, as I understand it, was heavily hardware-based, as were
>> many of the other systems. Could a smartphone of today's processing
>> power handle a moonshot using mostly its RISC processor(s)?
>>
>> I'm dubious.
>>
>> However, that's not saying that today's smartphones processing power
>> isn't phenomenal, they are and I stand in awe whenever I stare at mine
>> in reverie.
>>
> Considering that the memory cycle times, amount of memory, and online
> storage, and that many of today's smartphones have from 6 to 8
> processors, I am quite sure they could run rings and circles around
> anything available in 1969.  I was in commercial data processing at the
> time, and we were using 16k memory IBM 1440 machines!  Later got an IBM
> 360/30, which had 64K of memory, with a cycle time of 2ms!  Yep, I think
> todays smartphones could handle it.
>
They certainly could handle the software elements of the 1960's Apollos
but the question is, could they also have enough processing power to
replicate the hardware functions in the other components like the INS.
Specifically, could they also power a software equivalent parts of the
hardware INS system, for example. If not, then having them handle only
the primitive 1960s code isn't as mind-boggling as some would make it
sounds, imo.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I feel unclean

Sailfish-4
My bloviated meandering follows what Sailfish graced us with on
11/22/2017 11:32 AM:

> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 11/22/2017 10:52 AM:
>> On 11/22/2017 10:57 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
>>> 11/21/2017 11:57 PM:
>>>> On 11/21/2017 5:08 PM, Rav wrote:
>>>>> On 11/21/2017 4:40 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/21/2017 2:20 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with
>>>>>>> on 11/21/2017 11:32 AM:
>>>>>>>> I swore I wasn't going to update from 52ESR/linux, but I was
>>>>>>>> curious about whether it would speed up the
>>>>>>>> slow-as-pushing-rocks-uphill facebook scrolling as well as
>>>>>>>> making it possible to view facebook videos.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm ashamed to say that yeah, it does speed up FB, but it
>>>>>>>> doesn't help with the videos.  So now I have 52 open for general
>>>>>>>> browsing and 57 (which I will hold my nose and allow to update)
>>>>>>>> for FB and Chrome for whatever the FFs won't do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fortunately HD space is cheap.  My 8TB drive is split into 1TB
>>>>>>>> partitions (lots of backups), and my actual installation is only
>>>>>>>> 250GB.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My new android phone has 64GB internal memory and a 64GB
>>>>>>>> external card.  Plenty of room there too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm getting sloppy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You, like many of us, are still living in Bill "640K Ought to be
>>>>>>> Enough for Anyone" Gates 1989 universe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not me.  Still back with the 48K with 192K floppies.  Grin.  And I
>>>>>> thought THAT was lots of RAM and disk space.  First computers I
>>>>>> operated for the USAF had 4.8K of RAM, and card storage!   But the
>>>>>> OS was only 256bytes!  The good old days.
>>>>>> Modems operated at a blazing 300 baud, which yielded about 30
>>>>>> characters/second.  Now I get 8MB/S!  Progress!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Back when we used acoustic couplers in the early '70s (modems
>>>>> didn't exist because at that time the Bell System didn't allow
>>>>> anything to be direct connected to their network), the stated rate
>>>>> was 110 baud (about 10 cps).  But since we were using IBM 2741
>>>>> terminals (which were basically souped up IBM Selectric
>>>>> typewriters), much of the time there was an effective rate of about
>>>>> 3-4 characters per second, because it took one "character"
>>>>> transmission to turn the typeball 180 degrees to prepare to print
>>>>> an upper-case (or special) character, one to actually print that
>>>>> character, and another "character" to turn the typeball back to the
>>>>> lower-case characters.  Plus, a lot of "idle" characters had to be
>>>>> inserted when a line was done printing, so that the typeball didn't
>>>>> start printing the next line while it was returning to the left
>>>>> margin, slowing things down even further!  When 30 cps dot-matrix
>>>>> terminals arrived, we thought we were in heaven.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of amusing things from back in those days.  Consider the
>>>> amazing processing power, and memory, and storage of my iPhone 7,
>>>> compared to the computers that NASA used to send the Apollo missions
>>>> to the moon! Mind boggling.
>>>>
>>> It would be an interesting comparison to test. The inertial
>>> navigation system alone, as I understand it, was heavily
>>> hardware-based, as were many of the other systems. Could a smartphone
>>> of today's processing power handle a moonshot using mostly its RISC
>>> processor(s)?
>>>
>>> I'm dubious.
>>>
>>> However, that's not saying that today's smartphones processing power
>>> isn't phenomenal, they are and I stand in awe whenever I stare at
>>> mine in reverie.
>>>
>> Considering that the memory cycle times, amount of memory, and online
>> storage, and that many of today's smartphones have from 6 to 8
>> processors, I am quite sure they could run rings and circles around
>> anything available in 1969.  I was in commercial data processing at
>> the time, and we were using 16k memory IBM 1440 machines!  Later got
>> an IBM 360/30, which had 64K of memory, with a cycle time of 2ms!  
>> Yep, I think todays smartphones could handle it.
>>
> They certainly could handle the software elements of the 1960's Apollos
> but the question is, could they also have enough processing power to
> replicate the hardware functions in the other components like the INS.
> Specifically, could they also power a software equivalent parts of the
> hardware INS system, for example. If not, then having them handle only
> the primitive 1960s code isn't as mind-boggling as some would make it
> sounds, imo.
>
Further thinking on it, they were probably analog computers back then,
not digital, I suspect.

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general