Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Mxsmanic]

BillW50 writes:

It depends on the Windows application. All DOS applications use
preemptive and 32-bit Windows uses preemptive. But 16-bit Windows
applications uses cooperative tasking (which in my experience is often
better than preemptive tasking anyway). This is true for Windows 3.1,
and Windows 9x. I'm not sure what happens under NT/2K/XP with 16-bit
Windows applications.

Sixteen-bit applications cooperatively multitask within a single NTVDM
(virtual DOS machine). The NTVDM is preemptively multitasked with
other processes in the system. This is done because 16-bit
applications often cannot tolerate preemptive multitasking; they
expect to run in systems that enforce only cooperative multitasking.
It's possible to preemptively multitask 16-bit applications by running
each of them in a separate NTVDM, though.

To fix the flaw with preemptive tasking, OS often includes an
application priority level that one could adjust so it behaves better
with other multitasking functions. Cooperative tasking has no need for
any of this tweaking nonsense. Plus everything in the multitasking sense
often runs faster because the stupid preemptive tasking OS isn't
screwing everything up with its added CPU overhead.

For what it's worth, I once wrote a communications program that
achieved unheard of line speeds on very slow PCs by using cooperative
multitasking instead of preemptive multitasking. The latter is indeed
much slower, although it's more consistent and it does compensate for
poorly written applications to some extent.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[Bob Masta]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:41:44 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
<spam@anywhere.com> wrote:

Am I the only guy that was working with this crap back then? IBM
contracted with M$ to write OS/2 for them in like 1987. M$ drug their
feet on the release, while spending IBM's money, so that they could get
Win 3.0 out before OS/2, by saying that OS/2 just wasn't stable enough
for release yet. Yeah, no conflict of interest their. Finally IBM got
fed up and took the project away from M$. There are very many
suspicious similarities in "bugs" within the graphics system calls of
Win 3.0 and OS/2.

Interesting interview with Bill Gates on the whole OS/2 debacle in
PC Magazine, Nov 8, 2005 page 122-123.

Best regards.




Bob Masta
dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator

 

[Andrew Rossmann]

In article <LSR8f.1173$zb5.58@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
noemail@all.com says...

I've got a 1971 Ford LTD Convertible. These cars have eight 1157 style
bulbs in the rear to give full width tail and brake lights. That's a LOT
of current going through 30+ year old wiring, switches, and corroded sockets
when you hit the brakes.

This is what the rear end looks like: http://216.110.197.146/ltdrear.jpg

I want to install LEDs to do a couple of things. The first is to give the
"instant on" look for safety and the second is to reduce the current draw
going to the rear of the car when the tail lights are on and you have your
foot on the brakes.

I've seen the cheap bayonet replacement LED based 1157s and they suck.
Yeah, they are bright and give the LED look, but only in a single spot. You
don't have soft diffusion like you do with a filament bulb.

So, I drew up a little blueprint of what I'd like to find for my LTD. Look
at my design and tell me if such a board already exists in mass production.
(Just don't laugh at the drawings... I'm no architect! lol) If it doesn't
exist, I'd be willing to pay someone with soldering skills to create four of
these.

http://216.110.197.146/led_design.gif

The drawing is not perfect and the device doesn't need to be exactly like
this, but just a flat panel around 3 to 4" high and roughly 6-10" long. I
can disassemble my tail lamp housings and fit these panels in there with the
LED's facing the diffuser lense and I think it would give an EVENLY DIFFUSED
look to both the tail lamp lighting and the lighting when you hit the
brakes.

One issue with many LED replacements is that they generally only have
LED's pointing one way, with some also having a few sideways LED's. The
main problem is that there may be none pointing toward the rear, which
would bounce light off the reflector, giving a broader band of light.

Maybe if you could find a version with a wide distribution of light,
along with some of the diffusion techniques posted by others, to get a
more incandescent-looking pattern.

Also, if there is such a thing as a 'short' LED version, it may help
by keeping the light source further away from the car's lens, giving the
light more time to spread. Remember that with an incandescent, the
filament is in the middle of the bulb, whereas those LED's look like the
light comes right out at the end of a unit almost the same size as an
1157.

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross

 

[BillW50]

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:Yj29f.33575$Bf7.32821@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:41:44 GMT

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:v429f.441$p37.342@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i3s4m1hrkf574e5p79inehev45bvon2uvt@4ax.com...
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:42:43 +0200

mark349@lycos.com writes:

OS/2 is dead and gone, and although it was superior in design to
the old versions of Windows, it was not superior to NT.

Supposedly better in design, but OS/2 sucked in real life for many
of us! As only one OS/2 Win session had sound while the others was
soundless. And a good number of Windows applications would
routinely crashed under OS/2, but stable as a rock under Windows
3.1. Then the OS/2 GUI was unstable for at least a couple of years
and crashed the whole system. Then the FixPaks often caused more
problems than they fixed. IBM programmers are morons!

Am I the only guy that was working with this crap back then?

Nope!

IBM contracted with M$ to write OS/2 for them in like 1987.

It might have been in '86 actually. And MS had been working on Windows
since about '84. Although MS couldn't give the development time it
deserved because those MS programmers were mostly working on OS/2. MS
lost 3 years in Windows development because of OS/2.

M$ drug their feet on the release, while spending IBM's money, so
that they could get Win 3.0 out before OS/2, by saying that OS/2
just wasn't stable enough for release yet. Yeah, no conflict of
interest their.

IBM only paid MS for the lines of code MS produced. IBM didn't care if
MS spent more time to make the code lean, mean and faster. As IBM would
pay you less if you did so. IBM was cutting their own throats. IBM is
full of a much of morons. Impossible to work with and to get paid fairly
for. Hell I would work slowly and drag my feet as well for those morons.

Finally IBM got fed up and took the project away from M$.

Yeah, IBM got fed up alright! As Microsoft didn't want to be a slave to
IBM (who always makes slaves or crushes anybody that gets in their way
up to this point in time). And IBM wanted MS to create OS/2 which would
be made to run on only true IBM PCs after they have the world hooked on
OS/2.

Yeah that is a great plan for us, NOT! Bill Gates had taken the biggest
risk in his career. As nobody ever bucked IBM and had survived. Although
he did it! And thank goodness he did! As we all would be using real IBM
machines and OS/2 by now.

Sure IBM was ticked that Bill Gates wasn't going to play along. So they
parted ways. And IBM wouldn't sell any IBM computer with Windows
installed for a short time. Until IBM realized that they couldn't sell
IBM computers with either crappy PC-DOS or OS/2 on them. As
people wanted Windows instead, plain and simple.

There are very many suspicious similarities in "bugs" within the
graphics system calls of Win 3.0 and OS/2.

The same MS programmers wrote both OS/2 and Windows 3.0. So why should
this be a surprise?

______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:43:23 -0500, fybar
<fybar27@googlemail.com.figureitout> wrote:

So, I can just glue another connector on there? Is there no physical
connection? How does the signal get transferred from the connector
into the tuner? If there is a web page that describes this, that
would be fine.

Thanks!

fybar

Well you'll have to solder the center pin of the connector to the pad
it was originally connected and mechanically connect the outside of
the connector to the metal shield, you need to make sure there wasn't
an isolator in there as well, but it doesn't look to me like there
was. If in doubt, have a tech fix it.

So far it looks like $85 minimum. That is a little more than I want to
spend considering what I could spend to buy a new set. That is what I
expected, and why I wanted to do it myself.

Thanks again to all who contributed.

fyb

$85 US for putting a connector on a tuner?!?

Tom

 

[Mxsmanic]

Anthony Fremont writes:

It is my opinion that even XP doesn't qualify as a proper OS. Any OS
that allows an errant application to hang things up is not right.

XP does not allow applications to do that, unless they have the proper
privileges.

Unfortunately, many Windows applications today won't run without
elaborate privileges, and if they contain bugs, they can hang the
system. That's not the fault of the OS; if you tell it to run an
application as the administrator, it will, and all bets are off.

Even so, modern Windows applications are generally extremely stable,
and XP is even more stable still. I can't remember the last time I
saw an XP system crash. If the hardware fails, it may crash. A bad
driver can still crash it in certain situations. But that's it. Even
the Windows Explorer, a bastion of fragile instability when it was
first transplanted from Windows 95 into Windows NT 4.0, now rarely if
ever causes any problems.

Come to think of it, not only can I not remember the last time I saw
an XP system crash, I can't remember the last time I saw it lock up.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ghs9m1d82rncjalrm411n4ro7h7sdaaj4u@4ax.com...

Anthony Fremont writes:

It is my opinion that even XP doesn't qualify as a proper OS. Any
OS
that allows an errant application to hang things up is not right.

XP does not allow applications to do that, unless they have the proper
privileges.

That's what they say, but.......

Unfortunately, many Windows applications today won't run without
elaborate privileges, and if they contain bugs, they can hang the
system. That's not the fault of the OS; if you tell it to run an
application as the administrator, it will, and all bets are off.

Right, you don't really have much choice but to use the machine as an
admin. I log into Linux all the time as root though, and I run plenty
of bad code as root and it promptly segfaults and that's basically it.
You'd have to go to pretty good lengths to write code that would hang
Linux just because you ran it as root. Hanging the kernel is primarily
accomplished by device drivers, which are running in kernel space, so
all bets are really off there. My point is that hanging windows is
allot easier. On Linux it's fairly tricky just getting into position to
be able to start slapping the kernel around unless you're a device
driver of course.

Even so, modern Windows applications are generally extremely stable,

I'm not sure I really agree with that. It's probably a point of view
kinda thing. My background is in the mainframe world originally doing
online TP, so my definition of stability tends to be different from many
people. The same goes for security. Even Linux upsets me greatly at
times, especially MythTV and the ivtv driver. But that tends to be the
fault of the third party programmers and not the Linux kernel.

and XP is even more stable still. I can't remember the last time I
saw an XP system crash. If the hardware fails, it may crash. A bad

I can't fault the OS if hardware dies but, depending upon the particular
hardware, the driver might be graceful about it.

driver can still crash it in certain situations. But that's it. Even
the Windows Explorer, a bastion of fragile instability when it was
first transplanted from Windows 95 into Windows NT 4.0, now rarely if
ever causes any problems.

Come to think of it, not only can I not remember the last time I saw
an XP system crash, I can't remember the last time I saw it lock up.

Unfortunately, I can. Granted XP is better than their previous
offerings, but that's like saying it's better than a poke in the eye.
;-)

 

[Chris Jones]

Bob Monsen wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:35:59 -0700, lucasjensen wrote:

Hi Dave,

I've been searching the internet for suitable AA battery cameras, but
they are all too bulky. I understand that you want to stabilize the
voltage my means of a battery pack in between. But this is not a
working solution, because the entire system has to be really
lightweight. I know of some chips called something like 7805. They are
designed to give a constant output voltage as long as the input voltage
stays above a certain value. The 7805 would give a 5 V output. Frankly,
I hate the bike generator solution the most because it gives more
friction which I personally hate. I would rather stay with the mini
wind mill or the solar cell. As for the solar cells, they readily
produce DC current at a defined voltage. As I remember a solar cell
will always produce the same voltage if exposed to the same light
soruce (for instance the sun) and only the intensity will determine the
current. This means that you should have a fairly stable voltage but
alternating current (due to clouds etc).

Lucas

You should use a set of solar cells. A windmill would be pretty annoying,
and probably powered by your legs rather than the sun.

If you only want to charge a single cell (4.2V) you can use a 6V solar
cell pad. Limiting the current to 0.5C won't be an issue with solar cells,
assuming you don't go nuts and buy too many. The cells are generally
speced for a particular current. The voltage limit will be the main issue.
Use a regulator, like an LM317 (see the datasheet at www.national.com for
an appropriate circuit). You can get these at radio shack, where the
packages have schematics on the back. A small 1 hour timer would be a good
thing.

Look here and elsewhere for information on solar cells:

http://www.siliconsolar.com/portable_power_system.htm

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

It is mathematics that offers the exact mathematical sciences a certain
measure of security which, without mathematics, they could not obtain.
- Albert Einstein

Better to use a low-dropout regulator rather than the LM317, otherwise
you'll waste a good fraction of your hard-won solar power in the regulator.

Chris

 

[Chris Jones]

Rich Grise wrote:

Just rectify and filter the 12V from the generator and use a 110V
inverter. You could probably build a 25-watt inverter in about the
space of a couple of packs of cigarettes.

Cheers!
Rich
This isn't a very efficient arrangement. One really appreciate how much

energy is wasted in a wall-wart or cheap inverter when one must generate
that power through one's own muscles.

Chris

 

[Jamie]

BillW50 wrote:

vanagonvw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130531700.900539.275640@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Date: 28 Oct 2005 13:35:00 -0700


Hardly dead,


You mean hardly useful! And IBM dropped support a few months before they
were saying they would never drop OS/2 support. IBM has never done
anything except lie to me over and over again.


and oh by the way, NT was built on early OS/2 code. NT and 2000 had
plenty of OS/2 code in their kernel, and can even run text mode
OS/2 apps. If you had seen the code...... you would know that.


I did a search through OS/2 files for the Microsoft copyright in Warp a
few years ago. And Warp was littered everywhere with Microsoft's code
throughout OS/2.

______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000



excuse me, if memory serves IBM had MS write the first OS which i think

was for the 286 and thought that it would be alive for a long time.
then when 386 hit they tried to get MS to rewrite it for them and thus
ms quoted such a high price just to get them to go away thus leading
the way for MS to where they are now. mean while IBM then took over
the development to carry it on with their own programmers.
that is the way i remember it.

--
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[Jamie]

BillW50 wrote:

mark349@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:43625539$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:29:38 -0600



The difference will prove to be in your definition. The original
definition has been absconded with by microsoft in order to make it
appear that their inferior implementation actually meets the
requirements, so if it is really important that you 'win' that's okay
with me.

Mark


You have never mentioned cooperative tasking in anything you have
posted. Me thinks you really don't know about the different methods of
multitasking and the pros and cons of each.

______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000


Ha., i would be careful making statements like that.

i cut out most of the original poster since you
were trying very hard to out smart him (publicly).
there are a couple of things you made an error on
which i won't get into.


--
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[w_tom]

I was using, repairing, and designing for computers when a
small HP computer weighed about 300 pounds. You did not even
respond accurately to what I had posted. Since you are
insulting, then we know you haven't facts nor confidence in
your claims. Meanwhile ?which? windows is not a preemptive
multitasking operating system? Again you post as if all
Windows were same. But then the child would not have
sufficient knowledge to know that - just as the child also
resorts to insults.

Windows NT was designed and is a preemptive multitasking
operating system. There is no way around that reality.

vanagonvw@gmail.com wrote:

Proof that the biggest dick isn't in my pants. Read the frigging posts
and quit being a jackass. If you really knew anyting about PC operating
systems, you would know that the RTC on the motherboard is ONLY used
upon a reboot, and that the OS does its OWN timekeeping. Punks like
you, who just got a PC like two years ago, think that Windows reads the
MB clock on every time slice, which only shows that all you are is a
troll, with no knowledge of how things work.

A whole generation gave pukes like you computers and technology that
your kind could never reproduce, and you don't even take the time to
understand it. ...

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679@tornado.texas.rr.com> "Anthony
Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote:

I can't help but think of "the incredible liar" from Saturday Night Live
fame. Yeah, that's the ticket. ;-) $80,000 still seems a bit low to
me as they would have had more than that invested themselves. But I
will concede that you actually did back up your statement, even though I
don't believe Bill for a minute. ;-) I certainly will never believe
that DOS 2 and DOS 3 were included in that $80K.

I think the key is that it wasn't JUST $80K... It was $80K, plus
Microsoft got unlimited distribution rights of their own.

In other words, Microsoft got somebody else to pay the development costs
of a product that Microsoft was now selling.

--
Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it.

 

[CJT]

none wrote:

I need a A.C. capacitor for a small 1hp motor.
10uf @ 250v. dimensions 1inch across by 1-1/2 long.
Anyone know of a source for this?
TIA

I'd try your local HVAC parts distributor.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

 

[CyrusŽ]

Try your local Air Condition & Heating supply store.

CyrusŽ

 

[Mark]

Electronic Surplus Inc.
Phone: (216) 441-8500
Fax: (216) 441-8503
http://www.electronicsurplus.com/commerce

 

[Aidan Grey]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:44:22 GMT, Alt Beer wrote:

"bstanton@null.com" <B Stanton> wrote in message
news:lb62m1t57qasrqdrer78qisaq1hs1e02cr@4ax.com...
I've inherited my grandfather's shop, and there are boxes of
old components, from transistors in metal cans to rolls of
cotton insulated wire and capacitors that look like wax
sealed rolls of paper and foil. Little to none of it is
actually "new," it's mostly removed from older equipment.
There are also rectifiers that look like multiple square
pieces of metal separated by some rectifying material.

Is any of this worth anything? I'd like to junk anything
without value, but not if it's useful. Do people repair
older equipment with this stuff for "authenticity?" Not
many tubes in the collection. Comments are welcome.


Probably like gold dust to repairers and old radio
enthusiasts who like to keep equipment authentic at all cost.

I believe the rectifiers you are describing use selenium. I
think anything containing selenium classes as toxic waste, and
must be disposed of properly.

The capacitors will probably fail a leakage test if you do
one.

The other components are probably usable.


Aidan Grey

 

[David Maynard]

DevilsPGD wrote:

In message &lt;oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679@tornado.texas.rr.com&gt; "Anthony
Fremont" &lt;spam@anywhere.com&gt; wrote:


I can't help but think of "the incredible liar" from Saturday Night Live
fame. Yeah, that's the ticket. ;-) $80,000 still seems a bit low to
me as they would have had more than that invested themselves. But I
will concede that you actually did back up your statement, even though I
don't believe Bill for a minute. ;-) I certainly will never believe
that DOS 2 and DOS 3 were included in that $80K.


I think the key is that it wasn't JUST $80K... It was $80K, plus
Microsoft got unlimited distribution rights of their own.

In other words, Microsoft got somebody else to pay the development costs
of a product that Microsoft was now selling.

No, "in other words" Microsoft had the insight to retain distribution
rights on non-IBM products and IBM didn't mind one whit because they didn't
take the PC market seriously to begin with. Besides, it was a 'steal' at
$80,000 and who gives a dam about 'clones'?

Microsoft has the same kind of arrangement with Apple and they didn't care
either because both Apple and IBM figured on a 'system' sales model of
hardware and software. IBM expected their 'business machines' reputation to
swamp all other considerations and Apple depended on closed hardware.

On the other hand, Microsoft decided to be simply a supplier of software
that ran on any clone.

In fact, the 'Windows' GUI was originally developed as a means to run
Microsoft's 'Apple' business software, like Word, on PC clones and that is
not a trivial distinction. While IBM was trying to sell an 'O.S.', because
you 'have to' in order to sell hardware, Microsoft was selling Word (and
the rest), which happened to run on Windows. It's the applications that
sold the O.S., not the O.S. by itself.

 

[Jamie]

BillW50 wrote:

"Jamie" &lt;jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net&gt; wrote in message
news:bj69f.32661$E17.11599@fe03.lga...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:23:18 -0800


"BillW50" &lt;BillW50@aol.kom&gt; wrote in message
news:N839f.452$p37.235@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:38:05 GMT



I reread what I had posted and I see no errors I've made. So feel free
to disprove me if you wish. And yes, I am indeed human and I do make
mistakes. Most of them are do from moody, irrational female types.
Otherwise I do fairly well most of the time. &lt;grin

Hmm, i hope that last female remark wasn't intended to

be directed this way? because the last time i looked i
wasn't missing anything from my manly hood!
and to pic a little at OS/2, the only thing it did well
was operate the floppy drives while writing data to them
with out generating random sectors now and then that has
blank data in the stream.
for what ever reason, i still see this taking place in
windows. still need to use the CMD line version with a
write /V to make sure it goes there.
even linux doesn't have this problem on top of it
writing a floppy disc many times faster.

--
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[Jorgen Lund-Nielsen]

stefan.toftevall@bredband.net wrote:

Hi, one of my old scopes stopped working yesterday. I kinda like this
unit so I'd like to fix it. Last time it broke down, one new
electrolyte cured the problem and it has been in service for me for
years. Well, the error is probably related to something in the
CRT-drive circuit, since the lines and cursor-text are displayed *very*
low intensity. If anyone has got some schematics or service man. for
this unit, or any direct hints, I would appreciate it.
Best regards, Stefan
Audio power amp designer.

Ask here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TekScopes/

there are the experts.
But -as far as i knew- there are no -"down to the components"- service
manuals available for those kind of scopes from tek.

Jorgen