Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
Original Chat Log - John Titor - October 14, 2000
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Phil Wainwright" data-source="post: 77355" data-attributes="member: 4558"><p>Just a little thought on the precise computer specifications..... Although I have not played with a 5100, I just wonder how many of you remember the XT and AT systems? </p><p></p><p>When the XT came out, we had one when I was in the Navy <mumble> years ago. We all preferred the XT to the AT because the XT had a very useful little feature, pressing CTRL and H at the same time opened up a direct Hex editor!!! this was not the case with the AT.... Most of the systems we used in RADAR was Hex based programming, and so even after the AT set the ongoing standards, we always had an XT to hand as it made life easier. This is one example of differing features on IBM systems at the time..... </p><p></p><p>And to be honest, I am on the hunt for one of two computers myself either an original XT or an Apple 2e... I find that older systems do allow me to do more than the newer ones (in certain circumstances). Obviously, I have newer systems primarily because my DP and CAD packages are severely memory hungry and also need some reasonable processing power (Win 7, Win 8 running on Core I7 and core I5 respectively) </p><p></p><p>However, for manipulation of peripherals (home made) then I like the older systems. Just one other thought..... with the older systems, there was a lot of direct addressing used. I was working at one company when a control system went down, and in order to get it back up and running, we HAD to acquire a 386 DX33 with AMD bios. Nothing else would work due to the direct addressing used in the interface programme. I ended up paying twice as much for a second hand 386 motherboard than I would have done buying a Pentium 100 system....... So it is possible that someone really really did need a very specific model of computer to perform a specific task!</p><p></p><p>Obviously not proof in any form, but a possibly interesting fact. (certainly to a complete nerd like myself...... <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite45" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> )</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Phil Wainwright, post: 77355, member: 4558"] Just a little thought on the precise computer specifications..... Although I have not played with a 5100, I just wonder how many of you remember the XT and AT systems? When the XT came out, we had one when I was in the Navy <mumble> years ago. We all preferred the XT to the AT because the XT had a very useful little feature, pressing CTRL and H at the same time opened up a direct Hex editor!!! this was not the case with the AT.... Most of the systems we used in RADAR was Hex based programming, and so even after the AT set the ongoing standards, we always had an XT to hand as it made life easier. This is one example of differing features on IBM systems at the time..... And to be honest, I am on the hunt for one of two computers myself either an original XT or an Apple 2e... I find that older systems do allow me to do more than the newer ones (in certain circumstances). Obviously, I have newer systems primarily because my DP and CAD packages are severely memory hungry and also need some reasonable processing power (Win 7, Win 8 running on Core I7 and core I5 respectively) However, for manipulation of peripherals (home made) then I like the older systems. Just one other thought..... with the older systems, there was a lot of direct addressing used. I was working at one company when a control system went down, and in order to get it back up and running, we HAD to acquire a 386 DX33 with AMD bios. Nothing else would work due to the direct addressing used in the interface programme. I ended up paying twice as much for a second hand 386 motherboard than I would have done buying a Pentium 100 system....... So it is possible that someone really really did need a very specific model of computer to perform a specific task! Obviously not proof in any form, but a possibly interesting fact. (certainly to a complete nerd like myself...... :D ) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
Original Chat Log - John Titor - October 14, 2000
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top