|
also the clipboard image is weird green and with white background when I paste into irfview
i'll keep playing around with it.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 380 5/6
⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟨⬜
🟩⬜🟨🟩⬜
🟩🟩⬜🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
I'm confused about your troubles pasting Wordle results. I just tried it on my Ubuntu PC. I ran Wordle from a FireFox browser. I clicked the Share button on the Wordle pop-up. I pasted it using ctrl-V into the default Ubuntu Text Editor as plain text. It looks like what you see above my text here.
To me there seems to be a disconnect between what you see/say and what others say. When you click the share button in the Wordle pop-up displayed when you solve the puzzle it copies the grid to the clipboard. What's copied is character data - not image data. The squares are unicode characters. Above I just pasted the clipboard into the CP message box as plain text.
If you have tried this and it didn't work then I apologize. It was I that misunderstood something when you explained your difficulties. Which then makes it a mystery for me as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 380 5/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
🟨⬜⬜🟨⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
got it. for some reason i though it was image file. doh
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
I bought one of these off eBay for nostalgia's sake: Vectrex - Wikipedia[^]
It's really cool and it uses a relative of the Motorola 6502. But the weirdest thing about it is that it has only 1K of RAM! Imagine being tasked to write a video game that doesn't use more than 1K of RAM!
The sound effects are in league with the Apple ][. A single voice driving a single small speaker.
Does anyone else like to collect vintage computing devices?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
At least I find it fun to read about. Yet I doubt that I would be spending many hours playin games on that machine 
A small side remark: I looked around a few Wikipedia pages - some are of a strange kind, such as List of commercial failures in video games
[^], which lists the Vectrex among 32 other gaming hardware failures, and also lists 27 gaming software failures. I mean: How did we survive in the old days, without Wikipedia to provide such absolutely essential information?
Another remark: Referring to 6809 as 'a relative of 6502' ... well ... Sure, they were both marketed as 8-bitters. Just like 8086 and MC68K were 'relatives', as they both were 16-bitters, at least externally. (68K had several 32-bit features, and 6809 had a number of 16-bit features.) But who cares about such details, 40 years later?
(For those who remember the CPU wars of the 1980s, essentially between x86 and 68K: That is one of my prime examples to illustrate that sometimes, the best one does not win. But that is another discussion.)
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Yet I doubt that I would be spending many hours playin games on that machine
True, it wouldn't hold my interest for very long either.
But I like to have vintage computing devices. Reminds me of the golden age of home computers.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: Reminds me of the golden age of home computers.
You mean bronze age of computers. Today is the golden age. You can go down to the store and pick up a perfectly useable one for less than $500 that will handle some pretty impressive games that would have been utterly impossible back then, even if you shoveled out over $10,000. Or a million dollars, for that matter. I remember doing FEA in college, and the computation took hours to days. Now it is pretty much instantaneous. God, I don't miss those old 386's. Bootups in minutes...
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever you call the age, (its color depends upon your historical frame of reference,) vintage computing equipment reminds me of the time when I was first discovering computers as magic devices.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahh! The Magic Age!  Every day...
|
|
|
|
|
I find your reply fascinating, even if it doesn't make any sense to me.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Back then was magic. Now is also magic.)
|
|
|
|
|
Of course it is, I'm not disagreeing. I just think everybody likes to remember the "good ol' days".
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Now is also magic.
No. It's quantum mechanics that you may need these days to explain why your junk does not work. On top of the traditional ones like capacities, inductivities, noise in general, thermal problems or timing problems, of course. Even those in all possible combinations could be quite arcane to track down.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Lead. The correct metal to name the age after would have to be lead, as in soldering together your own hardware. These also still were the days when my old cat used to toast her rear parts on my 4k RAM expansion.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: I don't miss those old 386's. Bootups in minutes...
Hardly. My first "commercial" PC (bought from the company I worked for when it went bust and sold for scrap) was a 386 with 32Mb disk and 640Kb memory. It booted to DOS in about 3 seconds and loading up Win3.11 took about another 10. These days I avoid turning mu Core i7 off if I can possibly help it, as a cold start to a useable system takes at least 5 minutes. And god forbid if MS decides it's going to apply an update to W10, it can take anything between 15minutes and 4 or 5 hours. So yes, I certainly do miss the boot-up times of "old days". (And of course my very first Compukit UK101, running the 6502 mentioned in the original post, gave the a prompt sub-second from applying power. Warming up the CRT took longer  )
|
|
|
|
|
I think the the early 1980s was more "Cambrian Explosion".
A massive diversification of computers, most of which died out after the dominant species took hold.
|
|
|
|
|
I had the Radio Shack Color Computer (Coco), and it used a 6809 processor, was actually pretty impressive. Beyond the standard DOS OS that a lot of microcomputers of the time, RS also sold a version of OS-9, a small multi-threaded operating system (well, probably more of a task switcher, but still cool on such a small platform).
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, and it came with the very characteristic MC6847 graphics chip. Remember that awful text mode? You only have two choices of colors. Text can only be dark green on a light green background or brown on a bright orange background. Bleeding eyes are guaranteed and the fixed color palettes of the graphics modes are not better.
The 6847 used to be quite common back then and even today is still relatively easy to find for building your own 8 bit computers. I have two of them in my parts box. but when the day ever comes that I will actually build a graphics card for the Zwölf, I will probably take a TMS9918 instead. Or, if I actually have to use it, I will probably 'forget' to correctly mix in the color signals and leave the video signal grayscale only.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: I will probably take a TMS9918 instead
Was that the chip used inside the TI-99/4A home computer?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
At the time, I was fascinated by the 9900 chip (the CPU, not the 9918 graphics chip), having all 'registers' in memory. At an interrupt, you could swap context completely simply update the "Workspace Pointer" to another complete register set.
The bad thing was of course that register operations were no faster than memory operations, so all things considered, the chip was terribly slow. But interrupt handling was terribly fast!
Sometimes, when I dig up memories of those quite different solutions that were ditched, I can't help but wondering: What if someone took up the ideas today and modernized them? A 9900 model 2022 would of course be a 32 or 64 bit chip, and I assume it would be built with a caching mechanism for the register blocks. Maybe, for some application areas were super fast interrupt handling was essential, and "unlimited" number of threads was a valuable property, that idea of just setting a pointer to the appropriate register block might have some merit!
(I have worked on a machine with something resembling it: Interrupts were prioritized into 16 levels; a high level could suspend a lower one. Each level had its own physical register set. The first instruction of the interrupt handler started executing 900 ns after the arrival of the interrupt signal, which was rather impressive in the mid 1970s, when these small 16 bit minis (PDP-11 class) where developed and sold.)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I remember it well. I learned assembly for the TMS9900, and I recall that the architecture of the TI-99/4A was such that the video RAM was separate from the CPU RAM. In order to write to video RAM, the CPU had to set certain memory locations and then perform several NOP instructions to allow the video processor time to read the values that were just written.
This led to extremely poor graphics speed, and in my view was just a dumb design.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't expect anyone picking up a 30-40 year old architecture to feel obliged to carry forward any or every specific detail in the old design. Like the example you give: That seems to be something we can leave behind.
The important thing is if there are forgotten solutions that might be more viable today than they were when they were left. Even though 99/4A had a poor video RAM interface, still the idea of a register block pointer to memory may be far more realistic today than forty years ago. As far as I remember, at the time of TI-99 cache memory was completely unknown in the microprocessor world (and for some years to come). I am not stating as a fact that cache makes the register block pointer idea a good one, but it might change the situation so that in some context where fast interrupt handling and thousands of threads is essential and far more important than beating x64 on number crunching.
Whenever I tell my 'hope' that Intel would reconsider the ideas behind the 432, to make a truly object oriented processor, someone instantly jumps up: Forget it! The 432 was limited to 8 Ki objects - that is completely useless today! ... So why not make a 432 model 2022 with 4 Gi objects, then? But, I hear you cry, the 432 objects could be of max 4 Ki bytes! (if my memory is correct - don't quote me on that limit) ... So why not let the 432 model 2022 have object up to 4 Gi bytes?
The same thing here: Even though there may be bad partial solution that you don't want to pick up, don't let that keep you from reconsidering other partial solution that might be much better.
|
|
|
|
|
I also had a fascination with the TI 9900 chip. Loved that register concept. I don't collect vintage computers, but I have my TI99/4A in it's original box, with some of the original paperwork, and many cassettes of old basic and assembler programs. I haven't turned it on for 20 years. I think I tossed my TI cassette player, but I still have it's box. So, no collecting vintage hardware, but one piece that I can't seem to let go.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
