install the windows XP mode.

[charlie]

In

Well mine says '76. And we learned analog, digital, and were the last
class to learn about vacuum tubes (btw, I really miss tubes - not
perfect or anything but they did have a few advantages - see below). And
I would be really curious to learn what they taught about digital back
in '62? Not saying it was unheard of or anything. But programming by
punch cards (did they even exist in '62) or was it still stuck
programming by hardwiring back then?

And while the microprocessor was already invented when I went, I still
remember doing things the old way before microprocessors. That was
mostly TTL logic and the address and data lines connected to many TTL
logic chips and cycled through address one (aka zero in digital) through
whatever bit and repeated. Although only one TTL chip could talk (send
data) on a given address, but many could listen (the rest actually
listened but few cared what was there for a given address). Yes it
worked and required no microprocessor. But hopefully you were not in any
big hurry to do anything important. ;-)

Heck when did TTL come out? That was a tad bit before my time. But still
quite popular in the 70's. ;-)

A Side Note About Vacuum Tubes (or valves as some call them): They still
cannot be beat for raw power output. Still today anything that puts out
megawatts for power still uses tubes as a final at least. And the second
thing I like about them is the unique sound it does for audio. They
normally call it a warm sound (it is really tube distortion) and can be
quite pleasing to say the least. ;-)

If I remember right "tube distortion was a result of:
A gradual rolloff in frequency response vs. a rapid drop, and a
difference in the odd and even order harmonic mix.
The result as "smoothness" using tubes, and sort of a "harsh" sound from
solid state devices. TTL logic was "king of the hill" in the early to
middle 70's. CMOS logic was starting to make inroads by about 75.

 

[Stan Brown]

In

Really? I've been doing this for decades. If I am wrong about something,
I sure would *love* to know about it. As I surely wouldn't want to
believe something that isn't true. As that isn't my way.

Either you are capable of monumental self deception, or you are
trolling.

You have been corrected on two significant points (at least), and you
*say* you would like to know if you are wrong, but in fact you simply
ignore all correction and go on spouting the same wrong information.

 

[Walt]

I am using windows 7 ultimate, to run software I had on my XP machine
do I have to install the windows XP mode.

Frank

How about DOS? Will XP mode run a DOS program in Windows 7? I still
have one DOS program I use.

 

[Nil]

How about DOS? Will XP mode run a DOS program in Windows 7? I still
have one DOS program I use.

I'm interested in the answer to that, too. But if it doesn't, there are
several possible alternatives: Oracle Virtual Box, VMware Player,
DOSbox, Microsoft Virtual PC.

 

[Bill Bradshaw]

I have a DOS program I still use on a regular basis. The best program
of all of these I have found for running DOS programs is DOSBox. You
will be surprised at how fast it will run under DOSBox. You do not have
to run your program from within WinXP Mode which I have on my computer
and use for a couple of other Windows based programs.

 

[Seth]

How about DOS? Will XP mode run a DOS program in Windows 7? I still
have one DOS program I use.

The main issue with DOS programs that people still use in my experience is
advanced memory usage. How they need or handle EMS and XMS is usually the
major issue.

 

[Stan Brown]

I have a DOS program I still use on a regular basis. The best program
of all of these I have found for running DOS programs is DOSBox. You
will be surprised at how fast it will run under DOSBox. You do not have
to run your program from within WinXP Mode which I have on my computer
and use for a couple of other Windows based programs.

I second the recommendation. I learned about DOSBox from this
newsgroup, and it lets me run my dBASE IV accounting system without a
problem.

 

[Sunny Bard]

I see no difference whatsoever whatever you want to call it.
Virtual machine, XP Mode, or an emulator, it all works exactly the same
on the machine level. The only thing special about calling it XP Mode or
virtual machine is just some fancy terminology and marketing hype for
the old term we used to call an emulator.

Certainly "XP Mode" is merely a marketing term. An emulator and a
hypervisor my achieve the same result, but if *you* don't appreciate the
difference between the two, please don't try to convince people that
there *is* no difference between the two ...

 

[BillW50]

In

Certainly "XP Mode" is merely a marketing term. An emulator and a
hypervisor my achieve the same result, but if *you* don't appreciate
the difference between the two, please don't try to convince people
that there *is* no difference between the two ...

Really? Please educate us all how they are different?

Heck this reminds me of the new Commodore 64 out there. It looks just
like the original one, except it runs under Linux. Although it can run
Windows too. And it also runs Commodore 64 software as well. But even
this is just a PC with a Commodore 64 emulator.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/...updated-with-its-old-exterior/?ref=technology

 

[Sunny Bard]

Really? Please educate us all how they are different?

With emulation the CPU/hardware as seen by the guest O/S doesn't exist
and doesn't need to be the same type as the physical CPU/hardware the
host O/S is running on (e.g. you can emulate a 6502 processor with Ohio
Superboard II hardware on an i386 based PC, or emulate a VAX processor
with 11/780 hardware on a Motorola based Mac). But in short the guest
code never runs *on* the host hardware.

With virtualisation the guest O/S code actually runs on the host
processor, so the processor seen by the guest must be the same type as
the host. Granted that depending on the type of virtualisation used, the
hardware seen by the guest may either be real hardware that the
hypervisor permits the guest O/S to access or it may be emulated
hardware that is presented to the guest in such a way as to convince the
guest that it is real.

So sometimes virtualisation may use elements of emulation, but
virtualisation is not emulation. Each has its advantages in certain
situations.

Hows that for a 10,000 feet overview?

 

[BillW50]

In

With emulation the CPU/hardware as seen by the guest O/S doesn't exist
and doesn't need to be the same type as the physical CPU/hardware the
host O/S is running on (e.g. you can emulate a 6502 processor with
Ohio Superboard II hardware on an i386 based PC, or emulate a VAX
processor with 11/780 hardware on a Motorola based Mac). But in short
the guest code never runs *on* the host hardware.

With virtualisation the guest O/S code actually runs on the host
processor, so the processor seen by the guest must be the same type as
the host. Granted that depending on the type of virtualisation used,
the hardware seen by the guest may either be real hardware that the
hypervisor permits the guest O/S to access or it may be emulated
hardware that is presented to the guest in such a way as to convince
the guest that it is real.

So sometimes virtualisation may use elements of emulation, but
virtualisation is not emulation. Each has its advantages in certain
situations.

Hows that for a 10,000 feet overview?

Not bad! Although I see a lot of gray area here. Let's go back about 25
years ago. When Commodore released a nifty computer called the Commodore
128. It did something that no other computer before it did (at least
well). And that was it had two processors, a MOS 8510 and a Z80.

The 8510 also sported a 6502 mode. So it could run both 8510 and 6502
programs without any problems. So it could run Commodore 64, Commodore
128, and CP/M software all on one machine. And there wasn't any software
emulation at all. As it was done all through hardware alone. And
Commodore 64 and Commodore 128 modes were virtually flawless.

CP/M mode was another story. Sure it worked and sure it was compatible
alright. And the Z80 was used to run the CP/M software, but the 8510
handled the I/O ports (and the rest of the hardware). Sounds good up to
this point. But both processors couldn't run at the same time. Since you
can't have two processors controlling the same address and the data
lines at the same time. So they had taken turns.

So what happened? Well all of this switching from one processor to
another caused CP/M mode to be let's say, a bit slower than on a same
spec CP/M only machine. About four times slower is what I recall. And
that might be putting it mildly.

And to fill you in on these different modes, here is how it worked.

1) Just turning it on, it booted in 128 mode.

2) CP/M mode was enabled if you loaded from a CP/M boot disk from 128
mode.

3) 64 mode was enabled if you either held down the Commodore key (C=) at
power up, or by issuing a "go64" command from 128 mode.

So you couldn't have no more than one mode enabled at the same time. And
switching from one mode to another required at least often thought of as
a warm reset. As anything done from the previous mode was basically lost
(if not saved) when switching to another mode.

So my question to you is... Was this some sort of a virtual machine
having three different OS modes? Or was the C=128 just a C=64 and a CP/M
emulator?

 

[BillW50]

In

If I remember right "tube distortion was a result of:
A gradual rolloff in frequency response vs. a rapid drop, and a
difference in the odd and even order harmonic mix.
The result as "smoothness" using tubes, and sort of a "harsh" sound
from solid state devices. TTL logic was "king of the hill" in the
early to middle 70's. CMOS logic was starting to make inroads by
about 75.

Ah... many thanks Charlie.

 

[BillW50]

In

Either you are capable of monumental self deception, or you are
trolling.

You have been corrected on two significant points (at least), and you
*say* you would like to know if you are wrong, but in fact you simply
ignore all correction and go on spouting the same wrong information.

Oh really? Could you briefly summarize real quickly and reminds us what
you are talking about?

 

[charlie]

In

Ah... many thanks Charlie.

As to "High Power", solid state devices are making serious inroads in
this area. I was involved with some unusual wide band military microwave
systems for several decades. Traditionally, they used such things as
high power BWOs (really old school, think cold war, Russia, etc.) and
TWTs. In recent years, the tubes are getting replaced with parallel high
power solid state modules - - lower voltage, less heat, fewer altitude
related problems, and much higher reliability (MTBF). Seems the 10Kv or
so required by the tubes can be a serious problem at altitude.
Besides, if and when one of the parallel solid state modules fails, the
rest still work, usually avoiding total catastrophic failure. When the
tube systems failed, it was usually a chicken and egg situation between
the tubes, high voltage (power supply), and altitude, along with total
loss of output.
Replacement parts costs for the tube systems might easily reach 30k if
both the high voltage power supply and the TWT had to be replaced. You
could add another 10k if the high voltage modulator was also replaced.

 

[Char Jackson]

Not bad! Although I see a lot of gray area here. Let's go back about 25
years ago. When Commodore released a nifty computer called the Commodore
128. It did something that no other computer before it did (at least
well). And that was it had two processors, a MOS 8510 and a Z80.

Other sources say it had a 8502 rather than a 8510 CPU. (?)

 

[BillW50]

In

Other sources say it had a 8502 rather than a 8510 CPU. (?)

Oh... could be. My memory was it was a 8510. Although I probably got the
two last digits mixed up between them (25 years was awhile ago). So it
is probably a 8502 in C128 mode and acts like a 6510 in 64 mode. Does
this sound about right now? ;-)

 

[BillW50]

In

As to "High Power", solid state devices are making serious inroads in
this area.

They have been saying this for at least the past 40 years now. Although
I have no doubt at all it is getting better and better all of the time.
But isn't it true that microwave ovens are still using klystron tubes
today?

I was involved with some unusual wide band military
microwave systems for several decades.

Me too, although I only for only 6 years. And mainly for radar systems
on fighter aircraft.

Traditionally, they used such things as high power BWOs (really old
school, think cold war, Russia, etc.) and TWTs. In recent years, the
tubes are getting replaced with parallel high power solid state
modules - - lower voltage, less heat, fewer altitude related problems,
and much higher reliability (MTBF). Seems the 10Kv or so required by
the tubes can be a serious problem at altitude.

Besides, if and when one of the parallel solid state modules fails,
the rest still work, usually avoiding total catastrophic failure.

Very nice.

When the tube systems failed, it was usually a chicken and egg
situation between the tubes, high voltage (power supply), and
altitude, along with total loss of output.

Well the systems I was involved with, the high voltage and altitude
problem wasn't normally there. Since that part was pressurized. Although
getting a complaint that it doesn't work at 10,000 feet or above doesn't
help me much since I was sitting about 100 feet above sea level. And it
works great at 100 feet. lol

Replacement parts costs for the tube systems might easily reach 30k if
both the high voltage power supply and the TWT had to be replaced. You
could add another 10k if the high voltage modulator was also replaced.

Wow! Although I don't know what those tubes cost either. But they can't
be cheap either.

 

[Char Jackson]

In

Oh... could be. My memory was it was a 8510. Although I probably got the
two last digits mixed up between them (25 years was awhile ago). So it
is probably a 8502 in C128 mode and acts like a 6510 in 64 mode. Does
this sound about right now? ;-)

Sounds good to me.

 

[charlie]

In

They have been saying this for at least the past 40 years now. Although
I have no doubt at all it is getting better and better all of the time.
But isn't it true that microwave ovens are still using klystron tubes
today?


Me too, although I only for only 6 years. And mainly for radar systems
on fighter aircraft.



Very nice.


Well the systems I was involved with, the high voltage and altitude
problem wasn't normally there. Since that part was pressurized. Although
getting a complaint that it doesn't work at 10,000 feet or above doesn't
help me much since I was sitting about 100 feet above sea level. And it
works great at 100 feet. lol


Wow! Although I don't know what those tubes cost either. But they can't
be cheap either.

Of the major systems I had anything to do with,
B-52 - Liquid cooled, closed loop, pressurized. (Old school BWO system,
heavily modified in the 90s)
B-1 - Liquid cooled, open loop, not pressurized, originally used TWTs,
may have added solid state power modules during recent updates.
F-15 Air cooled, TWTs, Recent updates added the option for solid state
modules.
Multiple aircraft system with variants. Ram air cooled. Early versions
used high & low power TWTs, latest variant can use TWTs or solid state
modules.

The high power TWTs are NOT cheap! They are basically made to order in
small quantities. The yield is low without rework during the production
process. I'm not saying that the solid state modules are cheap either,
it's just that eliminating the high voltage required by the tubes
produces a large reliability increase. The efficiency is much greater,
so the power in per watt of output is much more favorable. On a TWT,
much of the input power turns into heat, with a smaller percentage
actually turning into RF output.

Microwave ovens use a single frequency narrow band TWT, which is a
different critter. For one, it's much more efficient, and the high
production rates have resulted in greatly increased reliability over the
years. We've had several microwave ovens. The first and second had 500
to 700 watts output. The rest have about 1.1Kw output, and use about the
same input power as the original Amana 600 watt output unit.

 

[Stan Brown]

[quoted text muted]

the difference between the two, please don't try to convince people
that there *is* no difference between the two ...

Really? Please educate us all how they are different?

With emulation the CPU/hardware as seen by the guest O/S doesn't exist
and doesn't need to be the same type as the physical CPU/hardware the

[snip]

A Heinlein quote seems apropos here:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. You'll just waste your time, and
annoy the pig."