good news I was able to upload today so something is working. Now if I could get the WU's off my PC

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

2 of my machines reported...but my i7 timed out.

17 Jul 2010 0:29:46 UTC

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

2 of my machines reported...but my i7 timed out.

17 Jul 2010 0:29:46 UTC

I was able to report as well.

---

- Jarryd

Because 1+1=2. Except when it doesn't.

A good programmer makes 1+1 = what they want it to.

As a 30yr assmebly language programer 1+1 = 10 ...

---

Because 1+1=2. Except when it doesn't.

A good programmer makes 1+1 = what they want it to.

As a 30yr assmebly language programer 1+1 = 10 ...

Almost 40 year assembler language programmer and I concur.

---

It's AALLIIIIIVEE!

Just got 3 cuda's (:

---

Ahhhhhh.....
7/16/2010 7:11:08 PM SETI@home Reporting 1734 completed tasks, requesting new tasks for GPU
7/16/2010 7:14:14 PM SETI@home Scheduler request completed: got 0 new tasks

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

Just hit the limit at 40

---

I have lots of work just glad to get those reported...

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

Because 1+1=2. Except when it doesn't.

A good programmer makes 1+1 = what they want it to.

As a 30yr assmebly language programer 1+1 = 10 ...

Almost 40 year assembler language programmer and I concur.

Wow! I've done a bit of assembly, and I know it is quite tedious. You can do anything, but it certainly takes a long time, and can be difficult to troubleshoot! That's impressive!

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Because 1+1=2. Except when it doesn't.

A good programmer makes 1+1 = what they want it to.

As a 30yr assmebly language programer 1+1 = 10 ...

Almost 40 year assembler language programmer and I concur.

Wow! I've done a bit of assembly, and I know it is quite tedious. You can do anything, but it certainly takes a long time, and can be difficult to troubleshoot! That's impressive!

Steve

Did you look at that second reference in the 'debugging' story I posted yesterday? Programming in raw machine code, for a computer which had the equivalent of 2 KB total memory - actually, 1 K 16-bit words?

If you make even a single byte change, adding an OP code so the program length changes, you have to go through the entire program, working out which memory location (jump target, data load or store) has changed. Now that's tedious, and it's why they realised they had to invent assembler.

Fortunately programs were short in those days...

Because 1+1=2. Except when it doesn't.

A good programmer makes 1+1 = what they want it to.

As a 30yr assmebly language programer 1+1 = 10 ...

Almost 40 year assembler language programmer and I concur.

Wow! I've done a bit of assembly, and I know it is quite tedious. You can do anything, but it certainly takes a long time, and can be difficult to troubleshoot! That's impressive!

Steve

Did you look at that second reference in the 'debugging' story I posted yesterday? Programming in raw machine code, for a computer which had the equivalent of 2 KB total memory - actually, 1 K 16-bit words?

If you make even a single byte change, adding an OP code so the program length changes, you have to go through the entire program, working out which memory location (jump target, data load or store) has changed. Now that's tedious, and it's why they realised they had to invent assembler.

Fortunately programs were short in those days...

Yes I did! I was doing assembly on an 8 bit CPU. The TRS-80 model 4. I wondered what it was like to code for 16,32, and 64 bit machines. As programs got larger and more complex, it seems like it would be impossible to write a program in one lifetime. :) A few years ago, an engineer friend of mine used assembly to do embedded programing on a digital inclinometer that was a true masterpiece. It was cancelled because it would have taken $100,000 to automate the temperature chamber in order to build it, but the code had to be very lean as the processor was limited in RAM. He was rewriting the code to calculate square roots to the point where it would complete in 6 microseconds. I was in awe of the actual product. This engineer is still a very good friend of mine even though he was laid off. He was the one who introduced me to the fine beers of the world!

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Because 1+1=2. Except when it doesn't.

A good programmer makes 1+1 = what they want it to.

As a 30yr assmebly language programer 1+1 = 10 ...

Almost 40 year assembler language programmer and I concur.

Wow! I've done a bit of assembly, and I know it is quite tedious. You can do anything, but it certainly takes a long time, and can be difficult to troubleshoot! That's impressive!

Steve

Did you look at that second reference in the 'debugging' story I posted yesterday? Programming in raw machine code, for a computer which had the equivalent of 2 KB total memory - actually, 1 K 16-bit words?

If you make even a single byte change, adding an OP code so the program length changes, you have to go through the entire program, working out which memory location (jump target, data load or store) has changed. Now that's tedious, and it's why they realised they had to invent assembler.

Fortunately programs were short in those days...

Some of the IBM code I saw had unused chunks of memory spaced through the code. The idea was assembling the code took a while so you didn't do it every time you made a change. What you did instead was branch to the unused section of memory and place your patch code there and then return to the existing code. The spaces were in the released code as well so if they needed a patch to production code they would only release the patch deck.

I can understand where they were coming from because for a while I would have to punch my binary to cards (slow process). I would take a listing at the same time and each time I made a memory patch, I would record it on the listing. About once a day when I had to many patches or a large change to make, I would go back to the system and update the code for another go around.

---

Some of the IBM code I saw had unused chunks of memory spaced through the code. The idea was assembling the code took a while so you didn't do it every time you made a change. What you did instead was branch to the unused section of memory and place your patch code there and then return to the existing code. The spaces were in the released code as well so if they needed a patch to production code they would only release the patch deck.

I can understand where they were coming from because for a while I would have to punch my binary to cards (slow process). I would take a listing at the same time and each time I made a memory patch, I would record it on the listing. About once a day when I had to many patches or a large change to make, I would go back to the system and update the code for another go around.

I always knew you had a good engine under the hood! :)

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Because 1+1=2. Except when it doesn't.

A good programmer makes 1+1 = what they want it to.

As a 30yr assmebly language programer 1+1 = 10 ...

Almost 40 year assembler language programmer and I concur.

Wow! I've done a bit of assembly, and I know it is quite tedious. You can do anything, but it certainly takes a long time, and can be difficult to troubleshoot! That's impressive!

Steve

Did you look at that second reference in the 'debugging' story I posted yesterday? Programming in raw machine code, for a computer which had the equivalent of 2 KB total memory - actually, 1 K 16-bit words?

If you make even a single byte change, adding an OP code so the program length changes, you have to go through the entire program, working out which memory location (jump target, data load or store) has changed. Now that's tedious, and it's why they realised they had to invent assembler.

Fortunately programs were short in those days...

Some of the IBM code I saw had unused chunks of memory spaced through the code. The idea was assembling the code took a while so you didn't do it every time you made a change. What you did instead was branch to the unused section of memory and place your patch code there and then return to the existing code. The spaces were in the released code as well so if they needed a patch to production code they would only release the patch deck.

I can understand where they were coming from because for a while I would have to punch my binary to cards (slow process). I would take a listing at the same time and each time I made a memory patch, I would record it on the listing. About once a day when I had to many patches or a large change to make, I would go back to the system and update the code for another go around.

Another thing that programmers today possibly aren't fully aware of are the delays that batch processing introduces into the testing cycle.

I wrote the dissertation for my post-grad diploma in the spring/summer of 1974. That meant using the University's (one and only) IBM 370 mainframe (though we had the luxury of electric QWERTY card pinches. (I've used the mechanical ones too: great for numeric data, lousy for programming).

As a grad student in the computing lab, I was issued with a key to the outer door of the of the facility. And another priviledge was beeing allowed to put our decks of cards into the reader's feed hopper ourselves, and press 'start'. Of course, all that did was to transfer the card deck image into the input queue (probably one of those big 12" tape decks beloved of sci-fi films).

Then you had to wait until your program reached the head of the queue, and got it's second or two of allocated CPU time: wait again while the output was queued for the line printer: and wait again until a operator cleared the printer output and split it at the inter-job banner pages. Finally, somebody brought it out to your pigeon hole in the reception area. "Syntax error in line 139: missing ')'". Boy, does that teach you to type accurately. [Pre-posting edit: look at paragraph 2. I actually did that. Again. Unintentionally.]

I found that if I worked during the day, I was lucky if I could get one run in the morning, and a second in the afternoon. But if I used my key to let myself in at 11 pm, after the pubs closed, I could get as many as three runs in before I stopped being able to code at all...

Edit: And another - those would be "QWERTY card punches...". One more, and that's a whole evening wasted.

Oh Richard, your post brings back memories of my undergrad computing on an IBM 370 in the early 1970s. After hours was the way to go, and your whole life style shifted to match. I always stood in line with everybody else to hand in my card deck, then stood in line to pick it up, along with the output with the dreaded syntax errors.

I also learned early on to use the automatic card numbering feature on our card punches. That could save the day when you dropped the deck while standing in line.

---

I actually remember doing Fortran using punch cards to load the program. I started in 9'th grade using a Digital PDP-11, which had no monitor, and used punched tape with a teletype to enter a BASIC program. After two weeks instruction, I became a computer aid, as I couldn't keep away from the computer. Boy the the games we made... I spent every study hall, and every available moment in the computer room. I look back at those years, then look at my mega-cruncher now that does everything I want it to. I can hardly imagine what will be in another 20 or 30 years. I compare doing raw machine code to the top performance by an olympic athlete. Something that is at the limit of human ability. :)

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

I have a collection of old computers @home :)

Even 2 Sinclair ZX80's :)

1024 bytes of memory :D

---

Rig name: "x6Crunchy"
OS: Win 7 x64
MB: Asus M4N98TD EVO
CPU: AMD X6 1055T 2.8(1,2v)
GPU: 2x Asus GTX560ti
Member of: Dutch Power Cows

Since we are just testing our memories... I went through Marine Corps Comm Elec school back in 1967. Every Friday test we would have to fill in the blanks on a card..A,B,C,D, or E for whichever was the answer. One man had been a programmer before joining the Corps and recognized the cards. He also figured out that if he did all Es it would screw the machine and he would ace every time no matter what the actual right answer was. Since we had other written tests during the week that he would barely pass his total score was low enough to not raise suspicion. At the end of the course though he made a big mistake... He requested to see the Commanding Officer and asked if he could take the course over since he didn't learn anything about electronics. Once he got out of the Brig he was sent to lineman's school and learned how to climb poles!

---

PROUD MEMBER OF Team Starfire World BOINC