On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:52:40 +1100, Stubbo_of_Oz wrote:

Uphill. Both ways.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

In newsan.2006.01.29.04.21.00.631547@thurston.blink ynet.net,
Blinky the Shark spewed forth:
In the snow.

--
If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:44:26 -0800, Blinky the Shark
<no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:


Well when I first started work we were issued with either a slide rule
or an abacus!!!!

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 05:35:21 +0100, Pee Jay wrote:

Abacus? You must've gone to a private school. We got a stick, and had to
bring our own dirt.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Stubbo_of_Oz wrote:

I even had a car once that had a crank starter as well as electric one. It
was a 1950 English Ford. One very cold morning it wouldn't start even when
fully choked. So I trotted out the hand crank and it started. Try that with
a 400 HP 6 liter engine with a 9.0 to 1 compression ratio. Could even a
heavy weight weight lifter do that?
FK

Toolman Tim wrote:

barefoot.
FK

"Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2006.01.28.21.14.15.467250@thurston.blink ynet.net...
Can't remember how many Cobol programs I wrote on punched cards!

Remember the "program card" wrapped on the drum for the IBM or Univac punch
card machine?

My favourite was watching a 4 reel tape sort in action - that was too
cool!!!

In news:yK8Df.124271$m05.23437@clgrps12,
Martik spewed forth:
Whoa - gotta video clip?

--
If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

"Toolman Tim" <frack.this@no.spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:XN8Df.71$Q%3.42@fe02.lga...
Wish I did.

This might interest you (from wikipedia):

"Merge sort is so inherently sequential that it's practical to run it using
slow tape drives as input and output devices. It requires very little
memory, and the memory required does not change with the number of data
elements. If you have four tape drives, it works as follows:

1.. divide the data to be sorted in half and put half on each of two tapes
2.. merge individual pairs of records from the two tapes; write two-record
chunks alternately to each of the two output tapes
3.. merge the two-record chunks from the two output tapes into four-record
chunks; write these alternately to the original two input tapes
4.. merge the four-record chunks into eight-record chunks; write these
alternately to the original two output tapes
5.. repeat until you have one chunk containing all the data, sorted ---
that is, for log n passes, where n is the number of records.
On tape drives that can run both backwards and forwards, you can run merge
passes in both directions, avoiding rewind time. For the same reason it is
also very useful for sorting data on disk that is too large to fit entirely
into primary memory."



Remember in those days 64K was a lot of memory.

In news:sVeDf.125162$m05.98101@clgrps12,
Martik spewed forth:
Oh yeah - I used to work in 16K. Sorts were tough! When I finally got a
machine with 64K I was ecstatic. That was a TRS80 Model III. Later, they
came out with one that had 128K but a user could only access the extra 64
with some fun direct programming. I could do BIG sorts then <g>! Since these
were early "desktops" there were no external tape bays...or even 4 floppy
drives (which could have been used in a similar fashion) so most sorting was
all done in RAM. I normally used a Shell-Metzner sort - small code size,
fast execution, excellent stuff. Nowadays, I couldn't even begin to write
code

--
If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:31:42 +0000, Martik wrote:

Hey, waddaya think I am, old or something?

And now we watch the clothes tumble around in the dryer. Where did we go
wrong?

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

"Toolman Tim" <frack.this@no.spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:UafDf.106$7D3.43@fe05.lga...
I discovered the Shell sort back in my Honeywell mainframe days. But for
large sorts we used the 6ft high
tape drives. IIRC 20-30k records would take 1/2 hr to sort. When we finally
got the 20MB disk drives that were the size of a washing machine we started
doing disksorts. We programmers would have fun by allocating the sort work
and source files on opposite ends of the platter so the heads would go
crazy.

Check out these sort comparisons: (click on the horizontal bars to compare
speeds)
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/harrison...ting-demo.html

Solar^ wrote:

I'm not sure if this is the forum for this but here goes:
Do computers worry you?

Solar^ wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:39:19 +0000, Gordon
I'm not sure I understand you fully.

Budweiser wrote:


Do you sometimes wish you were looking for?

philo wrote:

Solar^ wrote:
Does thinking of a lot of it from when you was in engineering school bring anything else to mind?

Mike Easter wrote:

Solar^ wrote:
Tell me more about that.

Blinky the Shark wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:59:01 -0600, philo wrote:
Does this topic make you feel angry ?

Gordon wrote:

Blinky the Shark wrote:
We were discussing you -- not me.

old jon wrote:


Does talking about this bother you?