Re: A83: Help
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A83: Help
What's all this crap about pentiums? Pentiums are slow and ever since
that math flaw-thigamajig a few years back (and the fact that they're WAY
TOO expensive: your buying the name and the advertisement) I haven't
bothered to mess with them. What I'm getting at is that the K6, or just
AMD in general, makes nice, FAST CPU's! Esp. if you overclock a K6-233
(I think) to a 400! (Not me, but a good friend)...
NEwhoo, wanted to get that out...
-Dimitri
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Robert Caldwell wrote:
>
> i hate hearing this conversation over MACs and PCs, my mail has (as of
> this morning) rose to about 127 e-mails. I think this conversation is
> very funny because neither one is good. MACs lack the user friendliness
> that everyone says it has (i know i can't understand it--i hate having
> File Edit View etc. on the top and me having to find which menu things
> are under). The PC lacks the speed (i know i want to go faster the
> fastest pentium out there--i have a 486dx2 (don't laugh) 66Mhz and it
> goes faster than my schools' pentium 2 128Mhz processors). PCs also
> have too many errors, they suck so much d*** it's not even funny, i
> don't know how bill gates could make such a stupid system--anyway. i
> plan on waiting until MACs totally go under the market so much that i am
> able to buy them out, and then i'll incorporate a new technology (the
> ability to emulate the older MACs will be added), but this tech will be
> a new order of the way CPUs are made (i've already finished 10 commands,
> only 14 more to go--and that's pretty sad when i'm 18 and can make a CPU
> have 28 commands and do the work of 100+ commands on a pentium2 faster).
> after this we will see who will "rule" the world, and another thing, i'm
> not going to seclude myself in my house like that chicken/loser Bill
> Gates has done.
>
> i already know what comments you're going to make how "you're too young,
> you want attention, your cpu is slow if you've actually created one, you
> lie," but it's ok if Grant makes an E2 or E3? a new computer age is
> about to come upon us, and i may even emulate PCs so that top games can
> still be on market and they don't have to change their codes.
>
> features include:
> 1) windows--this will be as qbasic has it's windows command, except it
> uses different routines to do it's work (faster loading and unloading
> time). the windows will have a more 3d effect to it (see number 3). i
> may rename the product (so i don't get sued) because i'm already making
> it from scratch and having a totally different look (making it
> practically impossible for a lawsuit).
> 2) upgrade--the upgrades won't cost you a leg and an arm. instead of
> being like PCs and paying for the 100 commands and also paying for the
> commands added in, you only have to pay for the added in commands. for
> example the cpu has currently 24 set commands, for an upgrade to 27
> commands you only pay for the 3 commands. the cpu that is currently in
> your system stays within the system, and the upgrade is "layered" (the
> cpu has a different shape to it making it easier to plug in).
> 3) 3d--i have incorporated a quake-like 3d engine with a faster routine
> and also a "portal" routine which is even faster than idsoftware plans
> on producing for quake3. the "portal" is so that you can see into other
> levels of quake looking through a "mirror" type fixture, but looking
> behind it you see the level you are on (this is idsoftware's upcoming
> "engine"). the actual "portal" engine i am going to use is for the
> windows based system so that each application looks through a "portal"
> to see what's inside. soon i'll incorporate gloves with a pressure bar
> on it along with 3d goggles so that people can view their documents like
> in that movie with the computer and the helper named "Angel" (i forget
> the name of the movie). i plan on doing it like that movie.
> 4) easy installer--installing programs and applications won't be a
> hassle anymore, no more of those "installshields", no more bluescreen
> faded background asking questions all the time...you place a cd in, the
> program will check if you have it installed, it'll ask you if you want
> it installed and start installing it itself (see 5 for virii info). the
> program sees for an autoexe file first (for win95 emulation) and then it
> checks for keywords like "install" or "setup" and then it'll browse the
> disk for the actual program if it can't find those 2. after that the
> program will ask you for the program to run (but this will usually not
> happen).
> 5) anti-virii--the program will contain levels built in, the
> multi-tasking system is built in also (windows isn't the built in
> feature). this means that if a file starts deleting or messing with
> other files it will contact you about it and ask for a key confirmation
> that you are positive you want the files messed with. if you delete a
> file, it is usually sent to the "recycling bin" but now its' name is
> stored in a "temp" file where you can "empty your recycling bin" and
> it'll ask you for confirmation. this is the only way you can delete
> files. and for the case of saving over a file, it's simple, the program
> can't have a file open without it having a header file saying that that
> file is used by the program. (technical jargon)...just say that it
> works, i've done some testing (trying to write virii in my mind) and
> came up with deadend results (meaning the virii didn't work).
> 6) unhackable--the cpu is unhackable, the privaledge (spelling?) levels
> of each program don't allow it to read other programs' stuff (meaning no
> "add-ons" allowed unless the company making the add-on gives me the code
> and i'll place extra stuff in it to cross the system). this doesn't
> mean the cpu is hackable...it's just for add-ons. it has a built in
> hex/code/etc. editor that is upgradeable also (but only by me or my
> company--when it's operational), this means that this is the only way to
> view a file in hex, also meaning that you can't disassemble a program if
> it is "sealed" (another new feature). a "sealed" program is like an
> uninstallable/not read-able at all type feature. whenever a program
> that is "sealed" is installed in the system the filename is stored in an
> "uninstall" list, in which the user can only delete the file using the
> uninstall program (which is also built in.
> 7) flash technology--when i say "built in" i actually mean mostly flash
> technology programming. the programming cannot be altered whatsoever
> (unless i give it a program to change it which cannot be hacked since my
> priveladge level exceeds even the computers built in
> programming--meaning hackers can't make my program and try and run it,
> it'll produce an error). the flash technology holds the programming for
> the OS, editor, 3d, interrupts, etc. (gives a priveladge of 1--mine's
> 0--the lower the better).
> 8) detachable/analysis--after i learn more about electronics i may
> implement this ability. "what is it?" well it's actually a precaution,
> if the FLASH technology ever is detached from the motherboard it will
> erase itself so that no analysis "kit" can start reading the information
> on it. i may even impliment so that a combination must be entered in
> order to gain access to the actual chip. if i'm successful i may even
> do it for the cpu so that they can't find the password for the flash on
> the cpu without giving the password. it creates a paradox actually "cpu
> needs pw from flash and flash needs pw from cpu in order for each to
> give each the pw," but i'll find a unhackable ability somehow.
>
> safe system--this system will be totally user-friendly, and also be so
> safe you could put your credit card numbers/security codes/etc. and no
> one will ever figure them out (if you put "sealed" on--you can always
> put it on, but taking it off you delete the file--it also can have a
> password to open it if you want).
>
> this is totally off topic, but i'd like some opinions about the "New
> World Order of Computers" if you don't mind. all the things i have
> mentioned are all my upcoming plans (meaning it hasn't happened yet).
> the only thing i have finished is the RAMchip (which has 4 separate
> buses to it--being able to look up 4 locations simultaneously with no
> conflicts in about 1/4 cycle on write and 1/8 cycle on read) and the CPU
> architecture with 10 commands finished (i've done the cache, ahead
> buffers, registers, etc.). the commands i've finished are ADD, SUB,
> MUL, DIV, AND, OR, XOR, NOT, SET, CLR. the other commands i'm doing are
> BR(), BN(), TST=, TST<, TST<=, JSR, RET, INT, RETI, JMP, INC, DEC, MOV,
> PUSH, POP, and POPW (the TSTs i count as 1 command). i've already
> created some of the drivers (startup sequence, multitasking, and some
> slot stuff). so far the ADD/SUB/MUL/DIV commands all do about 1/8 to
> 1/4 clock cycle (which is pretty good compared to 3 of the PCs). i did
> this because changing the values of the registers trigger an automatic
> calculator that will do the arithmetic and store the answer in "dummy"
> registers (these will need at least 1 to 3 clock cycles after changing
> the registers, but other than that it's usually 1/8 to 1/4 for just
> reading the "dummy" registers).
>
> anybody want to help (experience in electronics at least 1/2 year)?
>
> -Rob
> ICQ:9188921 "No Sol to kill"
> e-mail1:rc_ware@hotmail.com
> e-mail2:rc_ware@yahoo.com
> e-mail3:rc_ware@geocities.com
> webpage:http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Haven/4049/index.html
>
> p.s. i type in mostly lowercase because it's faster for me to type that
> way. other than that, make fun of me all you want.
>
>
> {{Why not? it's funny to watch them bitch (pardon my french).
> Oh by the way
> IBM PC'c will one day rule the earth..
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JUSTINJS <JUSTINJS@aol.com>
> To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
> Date: Tuesday, 14 April 1998 16:08
> Subject: Re: A83: Help
>
>
> >
> >This shit Pisses me off, we nead not talk about that heare, it is realy
> >anoying to people who have a mail Quota and are unable to get help
> becouse
> oh
> >this shit!!!
> >
> >> SGIs are better than Alphas... :)
> >
> > >>Ahhh, the Amiga. One of the better computers out there. I love
> them.
> > >>Unfortunately, I don't own one, but I at least own a compatible
> system:
> > >>ATARI 520ST (ring any bells?). NEwayze, I don't mean to get off of
> 83asm
> > >>(and I hope nobody holds me against my opinions on Amiga's-lets NOT
> get
> > >>in ANY PC-AMIGA-MAC wars, PLEASE!), but does NE1 have an Amiga that
> > >>they're interested in selling? (C8:
> > >>
> > >> -Dimitri}}
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
References: