ISIS-II was used on the MDS-800 development system. One of my
first products was developed on one. The floppies sounded like
someone grinding the gears on a manual tranny... The prom programmer
was the size of a breadbox.
[I still have the sources for the ISIS tools -- but, on paper]
I have a box of NOS media. Plus, a pristine 8" floppy drive
complete with electronic doorlock. The 512KB system that
I used the drive on allowed me to use the large RAM as a disk
cache. I would lock the drive door whenever there was
live data in the cache waiting to be written back to the
floppy. When I wanted to eject the floppy, I'd flush the
cache and the door would unlock when the writes were finished.
[Pretty slick for 1980 "home" technology -- classier than
the PC's that were just being introduced (and faster, too!)]
On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
ISIS is similar to CP/M because both were written by Gary Kildall.
Kildall worked on ISIS for Intel, which was used for Intel development
system, later he created CP/M as a
commercial product that his company Digital Research sold. Gary
couldn't reach an agreememt with IBM when they came a calling for
an OS for their first PC. Bill Gates copied CP/M, or enough of it
for MS DOS, so that the two were very similar, reached a deal with
IBMS and Gary always felt that Gates had unfairly copied from him
and cheated him.
Microprocessors didn't make it into my curriculum when I was in
school -- despite the fact that I was developing with them
"in industry" at the same time (i4004, i8080, MC6800). Instead,
the attitude was "why don't you take one of the VAXEN and use
While this seemed insane, at the time, it is amusing to realize
how forward-thinking the approach was: nowadays, a VAX-equivalent
environment is less than a cup of coffee! Why not use them EVERYWHERE?!
I wouldn't trust that. XPe is not the same product as XP.
And, by installing the registry hack, you are *claiming*
that you are running XPe. If the update process takes
your word for it, it will blindly install updates that WILL
work on XPe but that might NOT work on XP! In the process,
wedging your system (how do you "back out" the offending update?
Call MS and complain -- and beg for help??)
I still have a few...not in use XP machines , so I might be willing to
try the experiment.
Windows XP embedded is really all the same components as a standard XP
install, it's simply that corporations using it can customize to leave
out un-needed components
In an embedded environment, the resources available are often
of significantly different character.
E.g., you may not have "secondary storage" (disk).
Or, you may have it just to *load* executables -- swapping to it
may not be possible (read/only) or *durable* (flash with limited
How you approach a problem (in software) depends in large part on
the resources that you expect to have available.
If, for example, you can read some large object into memory
(e.g., the registry) and crosslink individual records (to
expedite future accesses to that data), you can choose to:
- leave it there knowing it will get swapped out to disk
as needs for memory increase
- explicitly write it *once* to "disk" (flash) with the
expectation that you won't be updating it (much) and can
just re-read the portions that you need AS you need them
- never load it in the first place and, instead, read it off
the immutable medium and go through the efforts of extracting
the data more slowly
XPe boxes tend to have fewer and limited applications -- you're unlikely
to find AutoCAD running on an XPe box! Often, those applications can
remain resident in memory (RAM) and not need to swap.
XPe boxes probably have fewer network interfaces (I can put 2 dozen
network interfaces in my desktop machines; I have *four* in a little
SBC machine... on the same PCI card!). This simplifies the routing
tables and overall design of the network stack. They probably
need fewer sockets as you're unlikely to have several "network
applications" active simultaneously.
It's like saying a motorcycle with sidecar is the same as a big Buick.
Well, just for an experiment I may try that registry hack anyway
Speaking of Buicks here one from 1957 which has been modified a bit
Yes, modified by photoshop but I like it
Someone posted it recently on FB thinking it was real
You'll never know if it is "working reliably" -- only if it is NOT! :>
And, you'll never know if one of the updates that get installed next
Tuesday will break it.
It's like overclocking a CPU -- yeah, it *might* work (for a particular
chip, temperature, power supply voltage, application, etc.)... or, not.
If you want a faster CPU, *buy* a faster CPU, etc.
Unless, of course, you don't REALLY want it (i.e., are willing to have
a broken computer) but just want to "play".
Here is what I just did:
I have XP in a virtual machine but never updated it.
Went to update it now for the first time and the process went very fast.
There were two preliminary updates needed and once they were applied it
found and started to fetch 131 more ASAP.
So my theory that MS was throttling updates for older systems is
wrong...looks like they are singling out Win7 for some reason.
I wonder why ?
On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 3:03:48 PM UTC-4, philo wrote:
I reported here my recent experience with Win 7. I restored a 4 year old
PC back to it's original software, so I needed to do all the Win 7 updates.
First it put in a new update agent. Then it did a bunch of updates that went
fine. Then it put in a new update agent and after that it just sat there
forever, checking for updates, not proceeding. I found lots of people in
various forums online, having the same problem, ie that after it put that
certain new update agent, everything stopped. I think some people reported
that if left alone for 2 days, it may have eventually proceeded. People
had contacted MSFT, no resolution. So, finally I thought to look and see
if there was a newer update agent. I found there were several, downloaded
one, installed it manually, and then updates proceeded normally again.
So, there is definitely something wrong between that one particular update
agent and the MSFT update servers. What else may be going on, IDK. But
it occurred to me that MSFT isn't too interested in fixing any of that
because it will help drive people to Win 10.
Believe me, I tried newer update agents and everything I could think of
to no avail. The best I could to is just leave the machine set to
auto-update, then let it sit overnight.
That usually did the trick but could take 8 - 12 hours to complete.
I really think MS is doing that purposely to "encourage" a move to Win10.
Possibly they just leave XP alone as it cannot be directly upgraded?
BTW: Since I had XP in a virtual machine and the installation is of
little value to me, I did try that previously mentioned registry hack
and got something like 46 more updates. Nothing seemed to have been
"screwed up" but I am not suggesting that others try it.
There are still browsers and virus checkers for XP...so it will probably
be around for a while yet.
New Firefox and Opera browsers still work on XP.
I now have XP only on a VM, although I don't see any problem with
continuing to use it. As to the browser, I've used Firefox since v0.8
(the first version called Firefox).
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.