read new nonstop follow
87159 4-MAY 18:01  Telecom (6809)
     RE: RiBBS (Re: Msg 87117)
     From: DENNYWRIGHT  To: STEWARD


I'll pas it along thanks!


-*-

87160 4-MAY 20:05  System Modules (6809)
     RE: Dynacalc problem (Re: Msg 87040)
     From: MIKE_GUZZI   To: WDTV5

version 1.16 but wes told me on fido i need another upgrade to fix
a bug in cc3io.


-*-

87162 4-MAY 22:16  System Modules (6809)
     RE: Dynacalc problem (Re: Msg 87160)
     From: WDTV5        To: MIKE_GUZZI (NR)

Humm, I wonder what that is? I've had so many diff versions of cc3io go thru
here that I long since gave up! I did the patch that lets me use the seriel
mouse, and then patched that one to get rid of the slow disk bug caused by
a clashing of IRQ mask bytes, and haven't changed it since. Do you have the
seriel mouse? If so, then the one I'm useing will probably work b but may
need an address patch if you're using the 4n1 seriel as the mouse port. I'm
using a set of pgyy-backed chips in the regular 232 pack, just never got
around to mmaking up the cable to use the 4n1 with it. Nothing else would
change except that address as far as I know. Cheers Mike, Gene  WDTV5@delphi.com

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

87161 4-MAY 22:09  Telecom (6809)
     RE: Windows (Re: Msg 87154)
     From: DSRTFOX      To: CHARLESAM

Are you the one who tried to pry the entire socket off the motherboard?

-*-

87167 4-MAY 23:26  Telecom (6809)
     RE: Windows (Re: Msg 87154)
     From: CHARLESAM    To: RANDYKWILSON

I understand what your saying okay. I was wondering why I was having such a
hard time doing just what you describe. But tell me, can you do it if you put
it all on one line separated by semi colons? I believe it can be done like
that. Not sure though, I'll have to try it again. But yeah, it was driving
me crazy doing exactly what you described. Well, I don't have to bump into
that wall anymore. Boy, am I getting an education. Again thanx, Charlie

-*-

87170 4-MAY 23:35  Telecom (6809)
     RE: Windows (Re: Msg 87161)
     From: CHARLESAM    To: DSRTFOX (NR)

Yeah, thats me... but thats not something I tell often anymore... :-!
Frank, I lost or misplaced volume #4 of 68Micro, how much for another?
Also, my subscription is due soon. If I see you at the Fest, I'll renew
for another year. Great magazine. BTW, can you tell me if their (Glenside)
akfast at the Fest? I didn't see mention of it in their
circular. I just got my Fest tickets today. I'm as excited as a kid at
Christmas and I'm 50..... Some people never grow up. ;-) Charlie

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

87163 4-MAY 22:17  Telecom (6809)
     RE: Loading SC to another window (Re: Msg 87113)
     From: KENTMH       To: CHARLESAM


SC<>>>/w& in the startup  file works for me!

Kent

-*-

87166 4-MAY 23:19  Telecom (6809)
     RE: Loading SC to another window (Re: Msg 87153)
     From: CHARLESAM    To: RANDYKWILSON

Tell you what, as much as I've been modifying my boot lately, I'm better off
using the floppy. This way I can make use of that program that allows multiple
boots on one disk. You going to the Fest? I'll be there. Driving from NY.
Charlie    Thanx Randy..

-*-

87168 4-MAY 23:27  Telecom (6809)
     RE: Loading SC to another window (Re: Msg 87166)
     From: RANDYKWILSON To: CHARLESAM

Nope, no fest for me. Matter of fact, if I remember the schedule correctly,
I'll be in NY that weekend. :>

   Randy

-*-

87171 4-MAY 23:40  Telecom (6809)
     RE: Loading SC to another window (Re: Msg 87163)
     From: CHARLESAM    To: KENTMH

I was complicating it beyond belief! I understand now how its done. Its
working fine just as you stated, you and several others. I was trying to
load it into an existing window and thats where I went wrong. I'm getting
an education here. Thanx Charlie

-*-

87172 4-MAY 23:42  Telecom (6809)
     RE: Loading SC to another window (Re: Msg 87168)
     From: CHARLESAM    To: RANDYKWILSON

What brings you to New York? Business or pleasure? I'm sorry I won't get
to meet you in person... Charlie

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

87164 4-MAY 22:52  General Information
     RE: Think about it... (Re: Msg 87137)
     From: KENTMH       To: JOHNREED


Not so!!!  The speed of light (c) is aa universal CONSTANT, which cannot be
exceeded.  Hence the light from the headlamps would travel forward at the same
speed as the car, as viewed from a stationary observer.  Time and distance
compression of the driver would cause the light to appear to move forward at
the speed of light (c) relative to the driver, but that would require total
(100%) time and distance compression (i.e., distance = 0 and time =0).  This
phenomenum implies that  travel in excess of the  speed of light causes
distance and time inversion, the basis for reverse time travel theory.  The
unanswered question is whether sufficient energy exists to accelerate any
real mass to or beyond the speed of light, and if mass converts to energy at
the speed of light
of light , since energy is the only known quantity able to travel
at that speed.  Perhaps mass travelling in our universe in excess of the
speed of light is actually anti-matter travelling at the inverse speed.  The
acceleration attainable by close orbiting or directly targeting a black hole
(near infinite gravity) is hypothesized as adequate to attain or exceed the
speed of light, but who knows?  Any volunteers?

Kent

-*-

87165 4-MAY 23:06  General Information
     RE: Think about it... (Re: Msg 87164)
     From: WA2EGP       To: KENTMH

All you really have to do is reduce the inertial mass to zero.  Problem solved!
The problem with the light is that there would be a heck of a blue shift toward
the front! (grin)

-*-

87175 5-MAY 03:01  General Information
     RE: Think about it... (Re: Msg 87164)
     From: PAGAN        To: KENTMH

 >This phenomenum implies that  travel in excess of the  speed of light causes
 >distance and time inversion, the basis for reverse time travel theory.

 What happens when a value greater than c is used the equations involve the
 square root of negative numbers.  What significance, if any, this has in the
 real world is subject to debate but it definitely does not mean time goes
 into reverse gear.

 >The unanswered question is whether sufficient energy exists to accelerate
 >any real mass to or beyond the speed of light, and if mass converts to
 >energy at the speed of light of light , since energy is the only known
 >quantity able to travel at that speed.  Perhaps mass travelling in our
 >universe in excess of the speed of light is actually anti-matter travelling
 >at the inverse speed.

 The answer is simple, it takes infinite energy to accelerate a non zero rest
 mass to light speed.  The truth of the equations that predict this get
 tested a million times a year in particle accelerators all over the world.
 No deviations from the predictions of special relativity yet.

 >The acceleration attainable by close orbiting or directly targeting a black
 >hole (near infinite gravity) is hypothesized as adequate to attain or exceed
 >the speed of light, but who knows?  Any volunteers?

 There is a way to approach a collapsar in a spacelike way and leave it in a
 timelike way so it _may_ be possible to move backward in time but you will
 still never exceed the speed of light.

 If that isn't confusing enough, consider that if you had a "wormhole" and
 put one end on a spacecraft headed off to A Centauri and back at .99c whilst
 the other end stayed at home you might think the total trip would take nine
 years for the stay at homes and about 1 1/4 years for the travelers.
 However, general relativity requires that the two ends of that worm hole have
 to be "synchronized" and the total trip takes 1 1/4 years in both frames of
 reference.  But you will still never exceed the speed of light!

 Before somebody starts pointing out the things that were "impossible" in the
 past that are commonplace now, I'll add that we are dealng with a fund-
 amental law of the universe, not someones' opinion.  Relativity has been
 tested against reality for over half a century and has never failed to yield
 accurate predictions.  That adds up to a pretty solid theory and is as close
 to certainty as an honest person can ever come.  It may not be a complete
 picture of reality but it is not a wrong one.  Any future theory must
 account for relativity just as relativity had to account for Newtonian
 mechanics.

 Stephen (PAGAN)

-*-

87182 5-MAY 21:14  General Information
     RE: Think about it... (Re: Msg 87164)
     From: PAGAN        To: KENTMH


 >This phenomenum implies that  travel in excess of the  speed of light causes
 >distance and time inversion, the basis for reverse time travel theory.

 What happens when a value greater than c is used the equations involve the
 square root of negative numbers.  What significance, if any, this has in the
 real world is subject to debate but it definitely does not mean time goes
 into reverse gear.

 >The unanswered question is whether sufficient energy exists to accelerate
 >any real mass to or beyond the speed of light, and if mass converts to
 >energy at the speed of light of light , since energy is the only known
 >quantity able to travel at that speed.  Perhaps mass travelling in our
 >ad a "wormhole" and
 pand peed of light is actually anti-matter travelling
 >at the inverse speed.

 The answer is simple, it takes infinite energy to accelerate a non zero rest
 mass to light speed.  The truth of the equations that predict this get
 tested a million times a year in particle accelerators all over the world.
 No deviations from the predictions of special relativity yet.

 >The acceleration attainable by close orbiting or directly targeting a black
 >hole (near infinite gravity) is hypothesized as adequate to attain or exceed
 >the speed of light, but who knows?  Any volunteers?

 There is a way to approach a collapsar in a spacelike way and leave it in a
 timelike way so it _may_ be possible to move backward in time but you will
 still never exceed the speed of light.

 If that isn't confusing enough, consider that if you had a "wormhole" and
 put one end on a spacecraft headed off to A Centauri and back at .99c whilst
 the other end stayed at home you might think the total trip would take nine
 years for the stay at homes and about 1 1/4 years for the travelers.
 However, general relativity requires that the two ends of that worm hole have
 to be "synchronized" and the total trip takes 1 1/4 years in both frames of
 reference.  But you will still never exceed the speed of light!

 Before somebody starts pointing out the things that were "impossible" in the
 past that are commonplace now, I'll add that we are dealng with a fund-
 amental law of the universe, not someones' opinion.  Relativity has been
 tested against reality for over half a century and has never failed to yield
 accurate predictions.  That adds up to a pretty solid theory and is as close
 to certainty as an honest person can ever come.  It may not be a complete
 picture of reality but it is not a wrong one.  Any future theory must
 account for relativity just as relativity had to account for Newtonian
 mechanics.

 Stephen (PAGAN)

-*-

87184 5-MAY 21:29  General Information
     RE: Think about it... (Re: Msg 87136)
     From: JRUPPEL      To: MRUPGRADE

That will definitely cause conffusion! I haven't me anyone who can push a Ford
at the speed of light <G>

John

-*-

87186 5-MAY 22:31  General Information
     RE: Think about it... (Re: Msg 87175)
     From: KENTMH       To: PAGAN

Stephen-

A half century is less than a "grain of sand#" in the universal hourglass of
time!  Don't be limited by what you think you know or by what you don't think
you don't know!  Newtonian physics was considered unflappable in its time, but
look what Albert did to it!

Kent

-*-

87191 6-MAY 00:22  General Information
     RE: Think about it... (Re: Msg 87175)
     From: MRUPGRADE    To: PAGAN

  I have to say, your explaination,, seem thourough fiarly intelligent*, and
 complete.  (plus very good <g> spelling)
  At least up to the part you use theh measue of a whole 50 years,, as a period
 of universal (as in theh universe) proof.  What portion of theh life of this
 planet does that fill?
  I could well imagine just 50 or 70 years ago,, space ships or their predictors

 would have drawn propellers on them,,, because it's a universal trueth, that
 (at that time) you couldn't move about above theh earth without them.
  the more learned scientists would agree:  There are only towew things that
 will remain as inpossibilities:
   1. A cure for theh common cold.
   2. An honest politician that can get elected.

  9
Til then,,, Terry Simons

-*-

87193 6-MAY 00:25  General Information
     RE: Think about it... (Re: Msg 87164)
     From: JOHNREED     To: KENTMH (NR)

 > Not so!!!  The speed of light (c) is aa universal CONSTANT, which cannot be

Yeah, I thought about that after I posted the message -- my
answer is only good for speeds "approaching" the speed of
light.  As far as the rest -- when (yeah, WHEN, not IF)
someone does find a way to get somewhere a light-year away
in less than a year, it will involve a short-cut.  It's
not that "it can't be done", we just haven't figured it out
yet.

           ********************************
 "Don't take life too serious - it ain't nohow permanent"
                                        (Pogo)

 John R. Wainwright <<CIS -- 72517,676>> <<DELPHI -- JOHNREED>>

-*-

87199 6-MAY 22:04  General Information
     RE: Think about it... (Re: Msg 87186)
     From: JEJONES      To: KENTMH (NR)

 > Newtonian physics was considered unflappable in its
 > time, but look what Albert did to it!

In one way, quite a bit (e.g. demolished Newton's notion of absolute time);
in another way, not much (since pool balls, pistons, pulleys, etc. don't
travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light, people still use
Newtonian mechanics to figure out how they behave and get answers that are
good enough).

Opinions herein are solely those of their respective authors.

Clipper Chip: Big Brother Inside

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

87169 4-MAY 23:29  General Information
     Pascal
     From: COMMUNICATOR To: KSCALES

Jog,

Jog,

Pascal.


Consider your memory jogged, and I hope you get this in time.

Steve O.


-*-

87179 5-MAY 05:02  General Information
     RE: Pascal (Re: Msg 87169)
     From: KSCALES      To: COMMUNICATOR (NR)

 > Pascal.
 >
 > Consider your memory jogged, and I hope you get this in time.
 >
 > Steve O.

Yo, Steve!  Glad to see you still have your Delphi account.

Got your message in time... (11:30 pm the night before the meeting -- nothing
like a last-minute reminder <g>)

Yep, I remembered our deal (even mentioned it tonight while talking with
Colin).  Got the manual sitting next to the mouse...

Cheers... see you at the meeting / Ken
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ken Scales   Delphi:KSCALES   Internet:kscales@delphi.com   CIS:74646,2237
 =-=-=-=-=-= Intel: Putting the backward in backward compatible =-=-=-=-=-=

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

87173 4-MAY 23:50  General Information
     Fest
     From: CHARLESAM    To: DSRTFOX (NR)

I see my previous message got chopped some. I was asking if Glenside is
having a breakfast at the Fest. I haven't seen mention of it. Charlie

-*-

87174 5-MAY 00:59  General Information
     RE: Fest (Re: Msg 87173)
     From: MITHELEN     To: CHARLESAM

I don't think there is an "official" breakfast thing, but, that doesn't
keep everyone from getting together i nthe hotel resteraunt Sat morning for
a bite to eat. I don't think I'd make it to an early morning thing though.
Friday night tends to be too much "fun" and I usually miss the first hour
or so of the show 8-)
Although, this year, my room will be pretty much right accross from
the vender room entrance... so I mught be able to drag myself that short
distance on time to the booth I'l be sitting in...

-*-

87188 5-MAY 23:06  General Information
     RE: Fest (Re: Msg 87174)
     From: CHARLESAM    To: MITHELEN

Yeah, that sounds fine. My wife and I will arrive Friday evening sometime.
Last year I went to the Iowa Fest and left my computer home. Not this time.
I hope to take advantage of all the experts to configure my system for
maximum capacity. That is if I can corral someone...;-)  Having my Coco
along I can test out what I purchase and maybe learn a few things too.
BTW, what booth will you be in? Well, its just two weeks away now and
I'm really looking forward to the day... Later Charlie

-*-

87195 6-MAY 00:33  General Information
     RE: Fest (Re: Msg 87188)
     From: MITHELEN     To: CHARLESAM

I will be in the Chicago Area OS-9 Users Group booth.
--
Paul

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

87176 5-MAY 03:21  General Information
     RE: Printers (Re: Msg 87157)
     From: ISC          To: COCOKIWI

But, Dennis,  If the hole seals the ink chamber <grin> why not refill it?
Is it possible?

Bill

-*-

87190 5-MAY 23:40  General Information
     RE: Printers (Re: Msg 87176)
     From: COCOKIWI     To: ISC

you do!>grin<        ........  mine started to leak on the bottom!
Dennis.......

-*-

87196 6-MAY 02:31  General Information
     RE: Printers (Re: Msg 87190)
     From: ISC          To: COCOKIWI (NR)

Well, Dennis, I think I understand this.  The refillable cartridges I have
seen have a sponge inside which holds the ink suspended.  The high
capacity cartridges probably use the seal vacuum to hold the ink inside.
The ink probably flows by capillary action.  Without the sponge inside,
it is possible to have a larger ink capacity.  However, that also defeats
the possibility to refill them.

Bill

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

87177 5-MAY 03:55  Applications (6809)
     com
     From: FRANCIES     To: HI!  I'M A V (NR)

This seems so stupid.

I do not know who I am communicating with and this is not what I expected.

-*-

87189 5-MAY 23:15  Applications (6809)
     RE: com (Re: Msg 87177)
     From: CHARLESAM    To: FRANCIES (NR)

Take heart Francies, we probably all felt that way in the beginning. Just
say your piece and don't worry about it. The parties here are very helpful
and most have a good sense of humor.. Hope you get back here again.
Charlie

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

87178 5-MAY 04:09  OSK Applications
     G-WINDOWS for MM/1
     From: EDELMAR      To: ALL

 I didn't get the 20 commitments I needed to do the port of G-WINDOWS for
 the MM/1 Computer so I'm dropping this project.  My apologies, regrets and
 thanks to those who did make commitments.

 Those still interested in G-WINDOWS for the MM/1 might wish to contact
 FHL.  I understand (rumor) that FHL is/will contract with Steve Adams to
 do the G-WINDOWS port for the MM/1.  If true, they may be assured of getting
 a solid port.

 Ed Gresick - DELMAR CO


-*-

87200 6-MAY 22:37  OSK Applications
     RE: G-WINDOWS for MM/1 (Re: Msg 87178)
     From: JOELHEGBERG  To: EDELMAR (NR)

Ed,

   Thanks for trying.  See you at the fest!

  -- Joel..


-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

87181 5-MAY 20:01  General Information
     HardDrive
     From: ACOTTON      To: ALL

I am trying to put togather a B&B GD system.. I have a 20MEG ST225 HD and
My problem is when I boot up with the HD bootdisk that
has BBFHDISK.DR and HD.dd configured for the st225 and TYPE  09: format /hd,
fine on an IBM clone before I bought it.. I am using a coco3 with multi-pak.
My power supply is an IBM clone 150 watt PS..  Any help will be apreciated..
   Thank in advance..  Al...

-*-

87187 5-MAY 22:35  General Information
     RE: HardDrive (Re: Msg 87181)
     From: KENTMH       To: ACOTTON

Al-

your message seems garbled.  Can you resubmit?

Kent

-*-

87197 6-MAY 19:58  General Information
     RE: HardDrive (Re: Msg 87187)
     From: ACOTTON      To: KENTMH (NR)

Sorry , some of my message must have gotten trucaded.. I put a hard drive
system togather using a Burke & Burke Hd interface- a wd1002a-wx1 controler. I
have the HD installed in an AT case with a 150 watt power suppy. My problem is
that when I boot up the
ssystem and type - format /hd, I get an ERROR 221 (module not found). I was
wandering if this might be because of the controler as I am sure the drive is
ok.. The B&B modules in my boot file are BBFHdisk.dr and HD.dd..
  Thinks for any help...

-*-

87202 6-MAY 23:25  General Information
     RE: HardDrive (Re: Msg 87197)
     From: MITHELEN     To: ACOTTON (NR)

Definately souunds like a software problem... does "HD" show up when
you do an "mdir". Perhaps the internal module name is something else. Also
make sure the driver name encoded in the device descriptor (/hd) is set
to "bbfhdisk", and not "bbfhdisk.dr" (do a "dump hd.dd" in the directory that
hd.dd is in and look towards the end for the bbfhdisk string)
--
Paul

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

87183 5-MAY 21:21  General Information
     help
     From: ROBERT84     To: ALL

Could someone help me out? I have downloaded several programs lately that
require compiling (c), and I haven't got a clue as to what's needed. Could
someone tell me what I need to compile a program.

Thanks,
Bob

-*-

87185 5-MAY 21:39  General Information
     RE: help (Re: Msg 87183)
     From: MITHELEN     To: ROBERT84

Fo starters, you need the C Compiler... If you don't have that, then your
dead in the water. It CAN still be obtaind through Tandy, as a special order
item.

-*-

87198 6-MAY 21:46  General Information
     RE: help (Re: Msg 87185)
     From: ROBERT84     To: MITHELEN

I do have the os9 c compiler catalog number 26-3038. When I fstated the file
                        cc1 it said it was created in 1983. Is this the one I ne
ed?

Thanks,
Bob

-*-

87201 6-MAY 23:21  General Information
     RE: help (Re: Msg 87198)
     From: MITHELEN     To: ROBERT84 (NR)

Yep. That is the ONLY compiler ever released (officially) There has been MANY
public improvements that you will want to get that will make things much
faster, and better... Look into getting CC 2.5.2, C_Prep, Krieder CLib.l,
Mike Sweets cgfx.l, Tim Kientzle's "make", ansifront, and probably a few other
things I forgot. All of these things add much moire functionalit to the
stock compiler, as well as inproveing it's execution speed, and speed of
outputed executables...

The simplest form of comileing a program would be:
CC program.c
which would create the executable module "program" in your current execution
directory...
large, complex program often have a type of "script" file called a "makefile"
that a utility called "make" processes, and figures out exactly what needs to
be done in order to produce the final result. It then does all the work
automagically, starting up the compiler with the proper options, and whatever
else it needs to do.

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

87192 6-MAY 00:22  General Information
     RE: OFNOHOC (Re: Msg 87019)
     From: TONYPODRAZA  To: MITHELEN

Just as soon as we find out the w/w/w/w, we can go.  hmmmmmmmmmm  why not bring
it up at the meeting next week?

-*-

87194 6-MAY 00:28  General Information
     RE: OFNOHOC (Re: Msg 87025)
     From: TONYPODRAZA  To: REVWCP

Sounds good.  perhaps a bit of time could elapse after the FEST! before we
undertake this.  Then we would have a bit more to storm about.  There's a few
good eating establishments around the bend....but then, a trip to the lair
of the RS232 wizard?  Who could resist?  and what is another 39 minutes travel
time, anyway?  How many people will the apartment hold?
hehehehe   we have about 18-30 people that meet at the library.
wonder if they would all fit?     ..........nasty thought, that, eh?


-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

87203 7-MAY 00:15  System Modules (6809)
     Merging files
     From: CHARLESAM    To: RANDYKWILSON (NR)

Randy, since os9 stores in 8k blocks, and SC (my version) is 17861 in size,
that would mean SC would occupy 23040 or 3 8k blks. Since the space is there,
could I merge a few commands in with SC and save paying rent. For that matter
would it work with other applications??? My startup file is working fine now,
but I don't have much memory left after Dynastar, Supercomm, and Presto-Partner
get theirs. I also have an empty text window besides term. Memory left is
20 blks or 160k. Sys memory is 56 pgs or 14k. Thanx Charlie

-*-


FORUM>Reply, Add, Read, "?" or Exit> 