Affordable PCB Layout Software ???

AZ Nomad wrote:
> 
> Who wants to run vista on any machine?


   You are final;ly catching on! ;-)


-- 
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

AZ Nomad wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:56:39 -0400, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >AZ Nomad wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:05:09 GMT, przemek klosowski <przemek.klosowski@gmail.nospam> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:51:37 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Perhaps it's just me, but i expect a quad-core 3GHz machine to be able
> >> >> to keep up with my typing as well as my Commodore 128 does.
> >>
> >> >Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.
> >>
> >> And microsoft does it faster than the chip makers can.
> 
> >    The ironic thing is Microsoft wrote part of the firmware for the
> >Commodore 128.
> 
> no wonder it was a failure.
> The probably had something to do with that commadore 64 floating around that
> couldn't run any commadore 64 software.


   The only case I know of like that was software that used undocumented
op codes in the early 6510 CPU.  That isn't Mos Technology, Commodore or
Microsoft's fault.  It was the programmer who used codes the 6510 manual
told you not to use.

   The Commode 128 was successful enough to spawned the 128D, and the
never marketed 256 version that was being manufactured when they were
shut down and liquidated.

   BTW, Microsoft wrote the BASIC versions used in most Commodore
computers.


-- 
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:09:37 +0200, Dombo <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:55:27 +0200, Dombo <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Consider that Adobe needs 100MB hard disk space for just a reader, where 
>>>others can produce a PDF reader that takes less than 1 MB and starts at 
>>>least 10x faster, and you still believe Adobe is producing efficient 
>>>software?
>> 
>> 
>> Go downtown with a guitar and a bucket.
>> Maybe somebody will toss you the penny that 100MB costs.  Actually,
>> you'll have 2/3rds of the penny left to buy another 200MB.
>> 
>> Newsflash:  files on a hard drive do not every one of them get loaded for
>> an application to function.  Stuff like help files, drm-shit, infrequently
>> used functions just sit on the hard drive until the user needs them.
>> 
>> Adobe reader runs fine and fast on a 1.4mhz laptop.  
>> 
>> Are you still using a 200mhz P1 as your main desktop?  

>You missed the point entirely, but I guess that should have been 
>expected. Maybe you understand when you grow up.

Actually, it was you who missed the point.  I was pointing that vista is
dog slow on the fastest hardware and you pointed out that linux is
bloated as well.  I mentioned that linux works just fine on hardware
1/4th as fast as current machines, and you pulled out bullshit story
about adobe being bloated.  

Maybe on a 200mhz P1, it is too bloated to run.  Compare that to vista
that is too bloated to run worth a shit on a 6ghz 2gb machine.

You're just argueing for the sake of argueing.
Kplonk>

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> AZ Nomad wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:56:39 -0400, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:05:09 GMT, przemek klosowski <przemek.klosowski@gmail.nospam> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:51:37 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps it's just me, but i expect a quad-core 3GHz machine to be able
>>>>>>to keep up with my typing as well as my Commodore 128 does.
>>>>
>>>>>Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.
>>>>
>>>>And microsoft does it faster than the chip makers can.
>>
>>>   The ironic thing is Microsoft wrote part of the firmware for the
>>>Commodore 128.
>>
>>no wonder it was a failure.
>>The probably had something to do with that commadore 64 floating around that
>>couldn't run any commadore 64 software.
> 
> 
> 
>    The only case I know of like that was software that used undocumented
> op codes in the early 6510 CPU.  That isn't Mos Technology, Commodore or
> Microsoft's fault.  It was the programmer who used codes the 6510 manual
> told you not to use.

The 6510 (and the 8502 used in the C128) supported the same undocumented 
opcodes during its lifetime. The only real compatibility issue I'm aware 
of involved an undocumented way to play samples on the sound chip, which 
no longer worked with newer revisions of that chip.

>    The Commode 128 was successful enough to spawned the 128D, and the
> never marketed 256 version that was being manufactured when they were
> shut down and liquidated.
> 
>    BTW, Microsoft wrote the BASIC versions used in most Commodore
> computers.

With the exception of the Amiga line, all Commodore computers used the 
Microsoft BASIC interpreter, just like many other home computers.

"Robert Baer" <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in message 
news:bp6dnaFEFt5-fSnVnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@posted.localnet...
>   I think that each program should have its own *findable* (and readable) 
> registry in the same directory that the program is stored.

As long as that mini-registry follows some standard conventions (e.g., knows 
how to separate "program" settings from "user" settings -- in many early 
programs, there weren't individual user settings since it was assumed that one 
PC = one user, and this causes network deployment to fail), that sounds 
workable.  However, you still need a centralized location to, e.g., register 
COM servers, DLLs, etc. so that one program can *find* another program in the 
first place without knowing its exact name and path, etc.

>   That might make it easier to !totally! remove a program...

Windows uninstallers are *supposed* to remove their registry entries when you 
tell them to remove the programs, but it is true that many install/uninstall 
routines are written and tested very, very poorly.  (I've seen a few where 
even changing the default installation path causes some parts of the program 
to end up where you want them and others to end up in the original default 
path, the result of which is that the program doesn't work at all.  And heck, 
there are some expensive programs like PADS PCB and ORCAD that to this day 
either won't let you or very much suggest against installing them in 
"c:\program files\whatever" because of the SPACE IN THE PATH NAME.  How can 
you possibly respect a software development company that in 2008 hasn't gotten 
around to supporting a feature of the file system introduced back in 1995? 
Sheesh.  ORCAD also tries very hard to prevent you from having a space in the 
name of your design files, although with a bit of trickery you can force it to 
let you do so.  But again... what a piece of junk...)

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message 
news:ctednSz_QPbr8CjVnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>   The Commode 128 was successful enough to spawned the 128D

Definitely something of a pinnacle of 8-bit computers, the 128D.

The Apple IIGS certainly wasn't bad either, although of course that was 
already a mixed 16/8-bit CPU.

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message 
news:dfr8b4d2sp1hmnu4d5okspuut3gfc3hu6g@4ax.com...
> They're not necessarily mutually exclusive- anyone remember Lynx?

Lynx is actually still kept alive by folks who use it in embedded systems such 
as routers -- since occasionally you'd really, really like to get to a simple 
in-house data-collection web site or whatever, and don't need the fancy 
graphics.  I installed it on an Asus WL-HDD NAS box earlier this year just for 
fun, and it worked better even with "regular" web sites than I would have 
guessed.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:29:52 -0700, Joel Koltner <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message 
>news:dfr8b4d2sp1hmnu4d5okspuut3gfc3hu6g@4ax.com...
>> They're not necessarily mutually exclusive- anyone remember Lynx?

>Lynx is actually still kept alive by folks who use it in embedded systems such 
>as routers -- since occasionally you'd really, really like to get to a simple 
>in-house data-collection web site or whatever, and don't need the fancy 
>graphics.  I installed it on an Asus WL-HDD NAS box earlier this year just for 
>fun, and it worked better even with "regular" web sites than I would have 
>guessed.

I'm usually more interested in tiny web servers sitting on embedded
system that I connect to from a desktop web browser.

Dombo wrote:
> 
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> > AZ Nomad wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:56:39 -0400, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>AZ Nomad wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:05:09 GMT, przemek klosowski <przemek.klosowski@gmail.nospam> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:51:37 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Perhaps it's just me, but i expect a quad-core 3GHz machine to be able
> >>>>>>to keep up with my typing as well as my Commodore 128 does.
> >>>>
> >>>>>Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.
> >>>>
> >>>>And microsoft does it faster than the chip makers can.
> >>
> >>>   The ironic thing is Microsoft wrote part of the firmware for the
> >>>Commodore 128.
> >>
> >>no wonder it was a failure.
> >>The probably had something to do with that commadore 64 floating around that
> >>couldn't run any commadore 64 software.
> >
> >
> >
> >    The only case I know of like that was software that used undocumented
> > op codes in the early 6510 CPU.  That isn't Mos Technology, Commodore or
> > Microsoft's fault.  It was the programmer who used codes the 6510 manual
> > told you not to use.
> 
> The 6510 (and the 8502 used in the C128) supported the same undocumented
> opcodes during its lifetime. The only real compatibility issue I'm aware
> of involved an undocumented way to play samples on the sound chip, which
> no longer worked with newer revisions of that chip.

   Sorry, but some production runs of the 6510 didn't support all the
undocumented op codes.  i had a friend who was into graphics, and his
6510 died.  I had to try over a dozen chips to find one that worked with
that program.  Everything else we tried ran on all the other 6510
chips.  I repaired hundreds of c-64 & C128/128D computers at the
component level.

 
> >    The Commode 128 was successful enough to spawned the 128D, and the
> > never marketed 256 version that was being manufactured when they were
> > shut down and liquidated.
> >
> >    BTW, Microsoft wrote the BASIC versions used in most Commodore
> > computers.
> 
> With the exception of the Amiga line, all Commodore computers used the
> Microsoft BASIC interpreter, just like many other home computers.


   They had different levels though.  When they went from the PET seers,
to the Vic-20, they scaled it way down.  The c-64 was a little better,
but the C128/D was a lot better.


-- 
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

Joel Koltner wrote:
> 
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ctednSz_QPbr8CjVnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@earthlink.com...
> >   The Commode 128 was successful enough to spawned the 128D
> 
> Definitely something of a pinnacle of 8-bit computers, the 128D.
> 
> The Apple IIGS certainly wasn't bad either, although of course that was
> already a mixed 16/8-bit CPU.


   Commodore developed their C-256 based on the Western Design Center
65816 16 bit CPU, but it was never on the market.


-- 
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.