COMSAT@MIT-MC (04/19/83)
From: Communications Satellite <COMSAT @ MIT-MC>
FAILED: MIYATA at MIT-AI; Host appears to be permanently down or not accepting mail.
Failed message follows:
-------
Date: 18 Apr 1983 0251-EST
From: Mel Pleasant <WORKS at RUTGERS>
Subject: WORKS Digest V3 #10
Sender: PLEASANT@RUTGERS
To: WorkS: ;
Reply-To: WORKS at RUTGERS
Works Digest Monday, 18 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 10
Today's Topics:
Queries - Perq/Vax Floppies &
Font Editor for the SUN & PIXEL,
Hardware - Trackballs vs Mice (6 msgs) & SUN &
Portable Terminals
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: <@udel-relay:Spaf.GaTech.GATech@UDel-Relay>
Date: 10 Apr 83 18:03:39-EST (Sun)
From: the soapbox of Gene Spafford <spaf.gatech@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Perq's and Floppies
Anybody out there had any experience in making floppies on a Vax
with an Rx01 floppy drive for use on Perq's? Basically, the Vax
drive will make single-sided floppies in RT-11 format, and then I
can read them on the Perq's.
However, there seems to be some kind of format problem. When I
format the floppies on the Perq using the "floppy" utility (single
sided, single density) and then use "arff" on the Vax (under 4.1bsd
Unix), I get a directory which has garbage at the end, although
"arff" can read and write to the floppy still. When I put the
diskette back in the Perq, the whole thing is munged so badly that
"floppy" cannot read anything off the diskette.
The only way the thing works is to use "flcopy" on the Vax to copy a
good disk onto my blank floppy, then use "arff" to delete the
contents, then use "arff" to add the files I want. This is tedious
and long. I need a way to properly format the diskettes and make
this whole process a little easier. I have lots and lots of files
to move and any suggestions/code/pointers will be greatly
appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Please reply directly to:
Spaf.GATech@UDel-Relay (CSNet and Arpa)
.......!allegra!gatech!spaf (uucp)
------------------------------
Return-path: <decvax!ittvax!swatt@Ucb-Vax>
Date: 13 Apr 83 8:46:08-PST (Wed)
From: decvax!ittvax!swatt (Alan S. Watt) @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: fed for sun?
Has anyone taken the UCB font editor (fed) and made it work on
terminals other than the HP? We have Ramtek 6211's and Sun
workstations sitting around and could use either one.
Thanks in advance
- Alan S. Watt
{decvax,duke,purdue,lbl-csam}!ittvax!swatt
decvax!ittvax!swatt@Berkeley
------------------------------
Return-path: <@udel-relay:velu.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
Date: 15 Apr 83 23:15:54 EST (Fri)
From: Velu Sinha <velu.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Information Wanted - Pixel
Looking for info on the new (?) Pixel. Heard it has a 140mb 5 1/4
in. Winchester? What kind of Graphics? Any info appreciated. Also -
How does it compare to the Sun/Apollo or Charles River/Masscomp type
systems?
Thanx.
Please mail directly to me; I will summarize and reply to the net if
there is enough response.
-v-
velu.umcp-cs@udel
.....!brl-bmd!umcp-cs!velu
------------------------------
Return-path: <OUT-MAIL@OFFICE-3>
Date: 9-Apr-83 01:26 PST
From: RICH.GVT@OFFICE-3
Subject: Re: Track balls don't have buttons [WORKS Digest V3 #9]
To: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-VLSI, chin%UCBKIM@Berkeley
But trackballs DO have buttons. You can get a stand-alone trackball
box (similar to a mouse) of the shelf with your choice of 1, 2, or
3 buttons. Also, if I recall correctly, your choice of analog or
digital output.
-Rich Zellich
------------------------------
Return-path: <harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdchema!jmcg@Ucb-Vax>
Date: 8 Apr 83 3:28:47-PST (Fri)
From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdchema!jmcg at Ucb-Vax
Subject: thumbpads vs. mice
On older Xerox office automation products (earlier than Star), they
had a device they called a "mouse". It was a finger pad to the
right of the keyboard. It most resembled a joystick*: the position
of your touching it determined a direction and the contact area
supplemented the distance from the center to produce a magnitude.
Small, slow adjustments were made using a light touch of a
fingertip; large, quick movements were made using four fingers flat.
I've always thought they put it in the wrong place. Where I would
want such a thing is under my thumbs in front of the space bar.
That would solve the problem of having to remove a hand from the
keyboard to use the pointing device. It could easily fit in the
palmrest area found on these new "ergonomic" keyboards.
Modern mice appear to be best for drawing; for pointing, I'd like to
see how this thumbpad idea would compete.
Jim McGinness
sdcsvax!jmcg (619)452-4016 UC San Diego, Chemistry
or decvax!jmcg
* Will the future remember Bill Joy as the inventor of the Joystick?
------------------------------
Return-path: <@udel-relay:mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
Date: 9 Apr 83 14:30:14 EST (Sat)
From: Mark Weiser <mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Missile Command Mice
I have played missile command running on Xerox Alto's at the U. of
Rochester, and found it quite comfortable. At the start of each
game I had to wiggle the mouse around to re-establish eye-hand
coordination, but then I feel I was much faster than with a
track-ball since I had all the kinesthesia of my arms muscles for
fast accurate positioning.
------------------------------
Return-path: <byard@bbn-unix>
Date: 10 Apr 1983 15:10:22 EST (Sunday)
From: Larry Byard (WSE-EUR) <byard at dca-ems>
Subject: Track balls vs Mice
I am on a business trip at present and I'm stuck with a TI 700
instead of my CPT word processor so this will be short... I used
the Navy Tactical Data System for three years. It had a track ball
which worked quite well, with practice. And by the way it had
buttons, right in front of the ball. I have also used the mouse on
Xerox's Star Work Station. To me, the mouse is the winner and it is
also much easier to learn.
Larry
------------------------------
Return-path: <Herbison@YALE>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 83 16:46:43 EST
From: "B.J." <Herbison@YALE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Track balls don't have buttons [WORKS Digest V3 #9]
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-VLSI.ARPA
Track balls don't have buttons. 'Nough said.
I worked on a graphics system in 1981 which used track balls with
three buttons.
I have not had experience using mice, but I believe that the track
ball buttons are less useful then mice buttons -- it is hard to
position the cursor while holding down a track ball button.
B.J.
Herbison-BJ@Yale
decvax!yale-comix!herbison-bj
------------------------------
Return-path: <OUT-MAIL@OFFICE-3>
Date: 14-Apr-83 14:40 PST
From: KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-3
Subject: Portable hand-held cursor control
Take the Maltron or standard keyboard and chop it in two down the
middle separating left and right hands. Put mouse trackers
(wheels, ball, optical device) under each half. One side slides
your window around or does long cursor positioning. The other one
does fine cursor positioning.
Ok, for a truly portable workstation twist each half of the keyboard
around and mount them on the back of your flat panel screen, top
rows in. Got that? Now which would be better: 1) putting
trackballs under the palms of your hands or 2) leaving the mouse
trackers to roll on the back of the panel attached to the keyboard
halves somehow?
-- kirk
------------------------------
Return-path: <FJW@MIT-MC>
Date: 10 April 1983 15:42 EST
From: Frank J. Wancho <FJW @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Suns, etc...
I believe the discussion proposed in this message properly belongs
on WorkS and I will attempt to divert responses to this list.
--Frank
--------------------
Date: 10 Apr 83 04:15:21 EST
From: MBF at cmu-cs-c.arpa
To: info-micro at brl.arpa
cc: mbf at cmu-cs-c.arpa
Re: Suns, etc...
I second the motion put forth in an earlier post: John Gilmore et
al, show us your stuff!
As a soon-to-be consumer of hi-tech workstations, I for one would
like to see (on this list, in a technical journal, or from one of
the workstation concerns) a comprehensive list of capability
comparisons between such systems as the new 68010-based Sun (Sun
II?), the Apollo Domain (including the new, "inexpensive" system),
the Perq II ("inexpensive" version, too), and the like. For a class
of personal workstations with some major similarities, these
machines have many differences at different levels. Perhaps someone
who has extensive experience with two or more of the machines could
post his opinions?
When will the 68010-based SUNs be in available on a production
basis? How about EMACS and Franzlisp? How good is the SUN mouse?
How about distribution, maintenance, software updates? What's the
truth about paging over an n-machine ethernet, for small and large
n? How about when the ethernet is used simple for file accesses and
paging is done using a local disk? Without actually doing
statistical analyses of the disk in question and a 10M ethernet, I
don't know the *facts*, but it seems conceivable that, for small n,
a 10M ethernet could compete favorably with garden-variety
winchesters (5-7 MBit/sec transfer rate) in average access, latency,
and transfer rates... but who has the real lowdown?
It would seem that the new Perq-II is a better competitor with the
68K systems than the previous machines from Three Rivers.... A
recent blurb in Electronics magazine claims 32-bit demand-paged
virtual memory, "Unix" of some (unnamed) flavor, 2M main memory
(standard!), a 32-meg winchester, and a large (20 in.) landscape
monitor with at least the same bit density as their earlier portrait
monitor (which raises screen resolution to 1280 x 1034)! Also, they
claim a minimum-configuration system starts at $13.9K!! It remains
to be seen what is meant by "minimum configuration". Does anybody
have any details? Is this machine really available?
I feel that more information is needed to make an intelligent
decision than the euphemistic literature available from the
manufacturers. Any information along these lines would be helpful
(as long as it's within the bounds of suitability for the list).
happy hacking,
Mark Dzmura
via mbf@cmu-cs-c
------------------------------
Return-path: <SIRBU@MIT-XX>
Date: 11 Apr 1983 1417-EST
From: Marvin Sirbu <SIRBU@MIT-XX>
Subject: Portable terminals
To: Telecom@USC-ISI, Neuman.ComRes@MIT-MULTICS, Pool@MIT-MULTICS
The annual report of Motorola contains this note of interest:
[Motorola] has developed a unique land-mobile radio/data
communications system which gives users access to computers while on
the move. The basic element of the system is a handheld
computer/data terminal containing both a radio and a telephone
modem. The system's intelligent network controller directs messages
between a large fixed computer and the portable user, and controls
the operation of the radio network.
The portable computer/terminal ... features read-only and random
access storage, a two-line liquid crystal display, and an
alphanumeric keyboard...
The first customer, IBM has contracted for a system to be used by
its field service personnel. The IBM system will consist of
approximately 250 separate citywide radio networks, coordinated by
20 intelligent network controllers, each interfacing with the IBM
nationwide computer network. Each controller is capable of
supporting up to 1,500 portable users. Installation will begin in
late 1983 and is scheduled for completion in 1985.
The article doesn't say whether packet radio or some other technique
is being used to control access.
Coupled with the recent FCC decision to liberalize the use of SCA's,
we may see even more of this kind of thing.
------------------------------
End of WorkS Digest
*******************
-------