Jump to content

User talk:MarkMLl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarkMLl (talk | contribs) at 14:00, 16 February 2014 (→Benedict Cumberbatch lead: WTF?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  #############################################################################
 #      1         2         3         4         5         6         7         8
# 45678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
#
#    Degrees in electronics, ex-B, ex-LUT, ex-GM.
#    Not married, no children, does not live in East Sussex.
#
#    See User page tab (above) for more info.
#
###############################################################################

Core on Burroughs large systems

I had a 5700 and a 6800 at one time the 5700 had actual core memory, i.e. ferrite cores, but the 6800 was semiconductor. Didn't look at your changes but those are the facts. The 5000 series generally preceeded VLSI. Lycurgus 07:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XDBus

Hi, I saw your changes to Cray CS6400 etc. claiming it was derived from the Xerox Dragon. While the XDBus was, of course, derived from the Dragon's inter-processor bus, there is more to a computer architecture than the inter-processor bus. Hence, I think it is a bit of an exageration to say that the SPARCcenter 2000 was essentially the same as a Dragon (which was, after all, based on a proprietary processor architecture and not SPARC-based) and that the CS6400 was therefore primarily a derivative of the Dragon also. Letdorf 11:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have a preprint of "SPARCcenter 2000: Multiprocessing for the 90’s!" which I believe was presented at
COMPCON SPRING ’93, San Francisco, Feb. 1993. This is co-authored by teams of engineers from Xerox and
Sun, and describes the SC 2000 in detail- rather more detail, in fact, than I've found elsewhere.
I believe that the Dragon, unlike other Xerox machines, was SPARC-based- if you have authoritative
information to the contrary I'd be happy to be corrected. Furthermore I believe that a common- or at
least very similar- chipset was used for the SPARCcenter, SPARCserver, and CS6400, this was either
identical to or a close derivative of the chips designed at Xerox by Neil Gunther. --MarkMLl 13:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've got confirmation that the Dragon was based on custom logic rather than SPARC and amended
the article appropriately. Obviously any more light that you can throw on this would be appreciated.
--MarkMLl 18:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NSLU2 - Discontinued

Why's Linksys marking it as such then if it isnt?

The fact that you can still buy them new doesnt mean its not discontinued

—Reedy 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Linksys's site at http://www.linksys.co.uk/cgi-bin/sh000000.pl?REFPAGE=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2elinksys%2eco%2euk%2facatalog%2fshop%2ehtml&WD=nslu2&SHOP=%20&PN=NAS_Basic_Systems%2ehtml%23aNSLU2#aNSLU2 which does NOT show it as discontinued. I agree that its availability from retailers is not necessarily a reliable indication I'd suggest that when Linksys themselves uniformly refer to it as discontinued it will be fair to mark it as such in Wp, but not before.


Proposed deletion of Pseudo intelligence

The article Pseudo intelligence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Term from a science fiction novel. No reliable sources given that this term has taken off in the real world. Likely neologism.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. eaolson (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Andrews and Arnold, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Rd232 talk 22:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VIOS Technologies

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of VIOS Technologies, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: ViOS. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag was spurious since I created and saved the VIOS Technologies page before deleting the paragraph from ViOS. MarkMLl (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews & Arnold

I created a stub for this company and whilst looking for content I found that (a) you have a page in development, and (b) Andrews and Arnold was speedily deleted on creation due to notability concerns. I believe the company is notable and mentioned a customer service award in the stub in an attempt to demonstrate this. Assuming the new stub survives, would you care to move your content into the new article? RichardOSmith (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XVCPI

Hi Mark. Reading the VCPI (Virtual Control Program Interface) article I stumbled upon your 2008 edit, where you wrote that an extended version of the specification named XVCPI was used by Interactive Unix and in Digital Research OSes (presumably in Concurrent or Multiuser DOS?). While I am quite familiar with the internals of the DRI operating system family, I must admit that I have not heard this particular abbreviation before. Was this something official? Can you perhaps provide some further explanation what kind of extensions were added. Do you have or know some references? Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I have removed your "XVCPI" contribution from the Virtual Control Program Interface article now. If you remember what you meant by this or where you heard about it, please don't hold back. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I know exactly what I meant, and what I meant I wrote. But I've got more important things to do with my life than go looking for 30-year-old documentation which might exist only in some company's archive to which I no longer have access. MarkMLl (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mark. Thanks for the reply. It's a pity, that you can't dedicate some time on it, because if it's real, it would be highly interesting to document it from a history of technology's point of view - and also for me personally. Even though I removed your contribution because it was very vague and unsourced (and you didn't reply to my query in 2011), I would have liked to keep it, even if it cannot be sourced by reliable sources (per WP standards) if it would at least have contained enough information to make it possible for an expert in the field to check plausibility. Instead of hunting down old archives, can you, perhaps, just provide a bit more technical or user level information on it (in the article, here, or via mail, if it contains information you don't want to make public)? Can you name specific products (names or versions) so that I could hunt them down and inspect them myself, or give at least a brief description of the kind of extensions to VCPI this XVCPI implemented? I am fluently familiar with the implementation of EMS, XMS, VCPI, DPMI, DPMS and extenders in various operating systems from the perspective of OS design and development, so you can skip the intro and go directly into "medias res", if you like. I would just need to get a grip at this XVCPI thing, a term I never heard before, and Google does not seem to know about as well. Perhaps it was an "internal name" and is publically known under a different name? Thanks alot for your efforts. Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matthias, glad you spotted that. The problem is that I remember the reference from information that came my way via Digital Research in the late 1980s, I think it was a "position document" of some sort relating to Interactive Unix since either the two companies had collaborated or one had picked up work done by the other. I no longer have access to the company whose library I was browsing, and since it's changed ownership it's most unlikely that the files have survived. I might have coded a test for XVCPI's presence "just in case" but since unpublished that's hardly something that would qualify as a "reliable source". I didn't go into the details of what it implemented, but my understanding is that it was to map extended memory on a per-process basis so that DR could tack DOS-extender functionality onto CDOS. I can think of somebody to ask- watch this space. MarkMLl (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found something in my old code, see below. MarkMLl (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...Context.

PROCEDURE vcpiPagesFree(): CARDINAL;

(* Find the number of 4K pages which may still be allocated.            *)

VAR     reg: Registers;

BEGIN
  reg.AX:= 0DE03H;
  Intr(reg, 67H);
  RETURN reg.DX
END vcpiPagesFree;


PROCEDURE xVcpiPresent(): BOOLEAN;

(* XVCPI is a parallel standard to VCPI propounded by a number of       *)
(* companies including Digital Research. Check for its presence.        *)

VAR     reg: Registers;

BEGIN
  reg.AX:= 0DE40H;
  Intr(reg, 67H);
  RETURN reg.AH = 0                             (* Zero if implemented  *)
END xVcpiPresent;


PROCEDURE xVcpiVersion(): CARDINAL;

(* Return the version of XVCPI that is implemented.                     *)

VAR     reg: Registers;

BEGIN
  reg.AX:= 0DE40H;
  Intr(reg, 67H);
  RETURN reg.BX
END xVcpiVersion;


PROCEDURE xVcpiPagesFree(): CARDINAL;

(* Find the number of 4K pages which may still be allocated.            *)

VAR     reg: Registers;

BEGIN
  reg.AX:= 0DE43H;
  Intr(reg, 67H);
  RETURN reg.DX
END xVcpiPagesFree;


PROCEDURE dpmiPresent(): BOOLEAN;

(* Return the presence or otherwise of DPMI.                            *)

VAR     reg: Registers;

BEGIN
  reg.AX:= 1687H;
  Intr(reg, 2FH);
  RETURN reg.AX = 0
END dpmiPresent;

...

PROCEDURE xVcpiReport;

(* Ditto for the XVCPI standard supported by Viewport, Digital Research *)
(* and others.                                                          *)
...

Intended to compile with JPI/TopSpeed Modula-2 1.17.

What I can't say is whether I actually had anything that implemented XVCPI "server" capabilities, or whether I wrote that against the paper spec lest somebody expected me to sort out problems on a machine that had it. Similarly, I can't say whether the idea was that DR implemented an XVCPI server for application programs to use, or whether they anticipated that CDOS would be running on a larger-scale (unix) system and would need to implement XVCPI client functionality to get memory etc. My understanding is that at least some of DR's code is now available for study (I'm not saying open source since I've not seen the licenses), but I doubt that that would include R&D projects or things they'd written in collaboration with another company. MarkMLl (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is great! I could meanwhile find "extended VCPI" mentioned in the DPMI 1.0 (not 0.9) specification - according to them a parallel effort to enable the full memory management and multitasking potential of the 386, and originally led by Intel. This narrows the time window to 1989 (when VCPI 1.0 was published) and 1990 (when DPMI 0.9 was published, and Intel joined the DPMI Committee). Now knowing that you actually meant Digital Research's Concurrent DOS 386 (which I assumed already, but wasn't sure about) may help me to verify the information and possibly locate reliable sources in my archives. If you find more bits about XVPCI, please don't hold back. Thanks again.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that timescale is about right. I left Grey Matter in the end of '89, and my notes in that program indicate that I originally coded it for Logitech Modula-2 (remember Logitech pre-mice?) which I stopped using at about the same time since in general JPI/Topspeed was superior and I had ways of talking to them. Allowing that (I believe) the main idea of XVCPI and DPMI was that they attempted to allow multiple DOS extenders to work without falling over each other, there's an interesting parallel in the work of today's "historical reenactment" enthusiasts: somebody's patched IBM VM/370 running on Hercules to access >16Mb RAM, but it provides no protection for multiple users so if more than one tries to execute e.g. a big C compilation they're all screwed. MarkMLl (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PC/TCP Packet Driver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TSR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nocturnal (instrument), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronometer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ISO 2047, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acknowledge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link temporarily removed pending more work on the article. MarkMLl (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Cumberbatch lead

Hello! I have just an immediate concern about Cumberbatch's page. Its leading paragraphs were changed and it indicated that "his parents were actors". I am just alarmed by this sentence as his parents are not dead nor are they retired from acting. There are a lot of sources to support this. I also think that the first paragraph is poorly written and the previous version is better as it lists everything from theatre to radio that made him notable and worthy of a Wikipedia page. I do think that's the purpose of the lead paragraph so that's why I am sending you this request. Thank you very much and I hope you can make changes immediately to lessen misinformation. Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.67.82.39 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to all concerned, I've neither heard of nor care about this individual and have not been responsible for any edits. In other words, it's absolutely noting to do with me. MarkMLl (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarkMLl&oldid=595729525"