Time to Upgrade ?:-}

[Don Y]

On 8/13/2015 1:36 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

Sadly (IMO), there are too many folks who either aren't given the
opportunity to "play outside the box" (because it isn't in the
economic interests of their employer) *or* who are afraid to
do so (possibly fear of failure?) *or*, worst, NOT INTERESTED!

(why didn't these folks go into something like ACCOUNTING or
DITCH DIGGING??)

playing outside the box can probably be well rewarded in accounting,
until you get caught

Ha! Point well taken!

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

Den torsdag den 13. august 2015 kl. 22.24.27 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 8/13/2015 1:08 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

Those are the moments that make engineering *fun*. Not building
a faster/cheaper/smaller/bigger version of last year's product, etc.
But, it puts a lot of people "off" -- there's more risk, more uncertainty,
more to LEARN...

That's why I'm having so much fun... I just love it when some schmuck
says, "Can't be done!" I think I learn _at_least_ one new trick a
day!

Sadly (IMO), there are too many folks who either aren't given the
opportunity to "play outside the box" (because it isn't in the
economic interests of their employer) *or* who are afraid to
do so (possibly fear of failure?) *or*, worst, NOT INTERESTED!

(why didn't these folks go into something like ACCOUNTING or
DITCH DIGGING??)

playing outside the box can probably be well rewarded in accounting,
until you get caught

-Lasse

Sno-o-o-ort >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com
Gave us:

Nearly everything runs on Win7 64 bit IME.

Not without signed drivers.

I just transitioned from XP to W7pro 64-bit. Everything works, and the
annoying UI interface changes have been mostly patched up. [1]

Old 16-bit apps won't run. Old 32-bit stuff works fine. And Google
Earth works again. Could have been a lot worse.

[1] how can I get rid of the "system view" junk on the left side of
Explorer panes?

---
Use Google Chrome instead.

John Fields

I meant the file explorer, not the browser.

---
Then you should have referred to it by its proper name, "Windows
Explorer."

I said that I was running Windows, and I didn't say "Internet
Explorer."

Indeed, but since there were two choices and you defined neither, your
assumption that clarity is inherent in your writing was flawed.

John Fields

You keep getting crazier.

---
Crazy is fun when designing new stuff, something stable old you
wouldn't know anything about.

John Fields

Yes, 555 chips provide endless creative opportunities.

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:08:07 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> Gave us:

That's why I'm having so much fun... I just love it when some schmuck
says, "Can't be done!" I think I learn _at_least_ one new trick a
day!

...Jim Thompson

So how did you drop the ball on having any grasp about what make for a
hot computer, schmuck boy?

The only trick you learned was how to avoid an actual technical
argument t by calling those who oppose you "a troll".

 

[krw]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

Den torsdag den 13. august 2015 kl. 22.24.27 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 8/13/2015 1:08 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

Those are the moments that make engineering *fun*. Not building
a faster/cheaper/smaller/bigger version of last year's product, etc.
But, it puts a lot of people "off" -- there's more risk, more uncertainty,
more to LEARN...

That's why I'm having so much fun... I just love it when some schmuck
says, "Can't be done!" I think I learn _at_least_ one new trick a
day!

Sadly (IMO), there are too many folks who either aren't given the
opportunity to "play outside the box" (because it isn't in the
economic interests of their employer) *or* who are afraid to
do so (possibly fear of failure?) *or*, worst, NOT INTERESTED!

(why didn't these folks go into something like ACCOUNTING or
DITCH DIGGING??)

playing outside the box can probably be well rewarded in accounting,
until you get caught

Just work for the government. You'll never get caught and if you do,
you'll get an even better job.

 

[Rheilly Phoull]

"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" wrote in message
news:f3aqsapnd7pe77j9lfrfiu2mg9rgb7qphv@4ax.com...

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:08:07 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> Gave us:

That's why I'm having so much fun... I just love it when some schmuck
says, "Can't be done!" I think I learn _at_least_ one new trick a
day!

...Jim Thompson

So how did you drop the ball on having any grasp about what make for a
hot computer, schmuck boy?

The only trick you learned was how to avoid an actual technical
argument t by calling those who oppose you "a troll".

Hmmm, what was that saying about kettles and pots ??

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com
Gave us:

Nearly everything runs on Win7 64 bit IME.

Not without signed drivers.

I just transitioned from XP to W7pro 64-bit. Everything works, and the
annoying UI interface changes have been mostly patched up. [1]

Old 16-bit apps won't run. Old 32-bit stuff works fine. And Google
Earth works again. Could have been a lot worse.

[1] how can I get rid of the "system view" junk on the left side of
Explorer panes?

---
Use Google Chrome instead.

John Fields

I meant the file explorer, not the browser.

---
Then you should have referred to it by its proper name, "Windows
Explorer."

I said that I was running Windows, and I didn't say "Internet
Explorer."

Indeed, but since there were two choices and you defined neither, your
assumption that clarity is inherent in your writing was flawed.

John Fields

You keep getting crazier.

---
Crazy is fun when designing new stuff, something stable old you
wouldn't know anything about.

John Fields

Yes, 555 chips provide endless creative opportunities.

---
How would _you_ know?

John Fields

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 14 August 2015 19:09:43 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com
Gave us:

Nearly everything runs on Win7 64 bit IME.

Not without signed drivers.

I just transitioned from XP to W7pro 64-bit. Everything works, and the
annoying UI interface changes have been mostly patched up. [1]

Old 16-bit apps won't run. Old 32-bit stuff works fine. And Google
Earth works again. Could have been a lot worse.

[1] how can I get rid of the "system view" junk on the left side of
Explorer panes?

---
Use Google Chrome instead.

John Fields

I meant the file explorer, not the browser.

---
Then you should have referred to it by its proper name, "Windows
Explorer."

I said that I was running Windows, and I didn't say "Internet
Explorer."

Indeed, but since there were two choices and you defined neither, your
assumption that clarity is inherent in your writing was flawed.

John Fields

You keep getting crazier.

---
Crazy is fun when designing new stuff, something stable old you
wouldn't know anything about.

Yes, 555 chips provide endless creative opportunities.

How would _you_ know?

Perhaps from listening to you tell us that - repeatedly - over the years. The creative energy might almost certainly have been better devoted to getting more modern devices to do similar stuff, but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks, despite the fact that it's usually easier to do the job some other way.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

> but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks,

So have a lot of other, REAL engineers, you retarded bastard.

They are STILL used in a lot of "modern designs", you pathetic
cringing milksop.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 22:50:06 -0400, Martin Riddle
<martin_ridd@verizon.net> wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 15:09:40 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 15:02:05 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 11:28:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:



I'm getting the general impression that I should avoid 64-bit to make
sure that my legacy programs will still work. Is that correct?

...Jim Thompson
--

No, you should make the jump and adapt (with VMware or some other
method) or dump the really old 16 bit programs. Most 32 bit stuff will
still run. It's time, and it will be the last major change for a very
long time.


--sp

Is there any way to tell what type a specific program is? I haven't
updated my PSpice since 2003 when OrCAD Crapture and Cadence stopped
improving PSpice (simulator) and tried to force everyone onto Crapture
:-(

...Jim Thompson

I think if you open the exe up with a hex editor, and look at x0100,
if you see 'PE', then its a portable exe 32bit app.

Also if you change the compatibility settings under Win7, it will only
list Vista and up if it is 64bit, 32bit apps will show XP 98 95 etc.

Cheers

x0100 has nought but ....
x0110 has PE

So is it portable 32-bit?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:33:36 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> Gave us:

So is it portable 32-bit?

...Jim Thompson

Shouldn't you already know, smartass?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 00:04:43 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks,

So have a lot of other, REAL engineers, you retarded bastard.

They are STILL used in a lot of "modern designs", you pathetic
cringing milksop.

Not by people who know what they are doing. See "legacy designs" and "legacy designers".

People who go in for "incremental development" do keep on using 555s when other solutions work better and come out cheaper, but when design cost is the biggest single element in the life-time expenditure on a device, things like the 555 do tend to survive for a very long time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 10:55:35 UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:53:42 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, 14 August 2015 19:09:43 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com
Gave us:

Nearly everything runs on Win7 64 bit IME.

Not without signed drivers.

I just transitioned from XP to W7pro 64-bit. Everything works, and the
annoying UI interface changes have been mostly patched up. [1]

Old 16-bit apps won't run. Old 32-bit stuff works fine. And Google
Earth works again. Could have been a lot worse.

[1] how can I get rid of the "system view" junk on the left side of
Explorer panes?

---
Use Google Chrome instead.

John Fields

I meant the file explorer, not the browser.

---
Then you should have referred to it by its proper name, "Windows
Explorer."

I said that I was running Windows, and I didn't say "Internet
Explorer."

Indeed, but since there were two choices and you defined neither, your
assumption that clarity is inherent in your writing was flawed.

John Fields

You keep getting crazier.

---
Crazy is fun when designing new stuff, something stable old you
wouldn't know anything about.

Yes, 555 chips provide endless creative opportunities.

How would _you_ know?

Perhaps from listening to you tell us that - repeatedly - over the years.

---
I've never made that claim, but what may make you think that I have is
that I've provided lots (hundreds?) of easy solutions for querents'
requests for help, here, over the last 20 years or so using 555s with
a sprinkling of discretes around them.
---

The creative energy might almost certainly have been better devoted
to getting more modern devices to do similar stuff,

---
Point taken, but even today a 555 is often the chip of choice for
those who want a a non-software/firmware encumbered solution for a
simple problem.

Last time I looked sales were brisk at about a billion per year, and
it seems like everybody's making them, so it's not like they're buggy
whips.
---

but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks,

---
Thanks for that.
---

despite the fact that it's usually easier to do the job some other way.

---
Noting that "easier" is subjective, I'd welcome your input as to what
you mean by "usually" and by "some other way".

At this point, a couple of schematics, one describing a circuit using
a 555 and yours, describing a "better" alternative, seems to be in
order.

Sloman's oscillator is still not working >:-}

The simulations run fine.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 10:53:48 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 14 August 2015 19:09:43 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com

<snip>

Crazy is fun when designing new stuff, something stable old you
wouldn't know anything about.

Yes, 555 chips provide endless creative opportunities.

How would _you_ know?

Perhaps from listening to you tell us that - repeatedly - over the years.

I've never made that claim, but what may make you think that I have is
that I've provided lots (hundreds?) of easy solutions for querents'
requests for help, here, over the last 20 years or so using 555s with
a sprinkling of discretes around them.

The perfect example of jobs where you want to minimise design time, and haven't got any interest in providing the best possible solution, as opposed to one which can be relied on to work.

The creative energy might almost certainly have been better devoted
to getting more modern devices to do similar stuff,

Point taken, but even today a 555 is often the chip of choice for
those who want a a non-software/firmware encumbered solution for a
simple problem.

Particularly amongst people who can't be bothered to find anything better.

Last time I looked sales were brisk at about a billion per year, and
it seems like everybody's making them, so it's not like they're buggy
whips.

Buggy whips stopped being manufactured when there weren't any more horses to use them on. The 555 works - it's just that it isn't as cheap, as small or as efficient as the alternatives - rather like the US constitution.

but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks,

Thanks for that.

despite the fact that it's usually easier to do the job some other way.

Noting that "easier" is subjective, I'd welcome your input as to what
you mean by "usually" and by "some other way".

"Usually" means "pretty much all the time" but "easier" is definitely subjective, essentially depending on how lazy you are and how little pride you take in your work.

At this point, a couple of schematics, one describing a circuit using
a 555 and yours, describing a "better" alternative, seems to be in
order.

Or we could have a flint-knapping competition ... the fact that you can use the 555 in lots of applications isn't a good argument for using it in most.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 14:20:16 UTC+10, DeludedLinuxUserNumeroNull wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

Not by people

snipped retarded attempt at acting as if you know what modern
designers do. You do not, Sloman.

In your slightly-less-than-authoritative opinion.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, 14 August 2015 19:09:43 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com
Gave us:

Nearly everything runs on Win7 64 bit IME.

Not without signed drivers.

I just transitioned from XP to W7pro 64-bit. Everything works, and the
annoying UI interface changes have been mostly patched up. [1]

Old 16-bit apps won't run. Old 32-bit stuff works fine. And Google
Earth works again. Could have been a lot worse.

[1] how can I get rid of the "system view" junk on the left side of
Explorer panes?

---
Use Google Chrome instead.

John Fields

I meant the file explorer, not the browser.

---
Then you should have referred to it by its proper name, "Windows
Explorer."

I said that I was running Windows, and I didn't say "Internet
Explorer."

Indeed, but since there were two choices and you defined neither, your
assumption that clarity is inherent in your writing was flawed.

John Fields

You keep getting crazier.

---
Crazy is fun when designing new stuff, something stable old you
wouldn't know anything about.

Yes, 555 chips provide endless creative opportunities.

How would _you_ know?

Perhaps from listening to you tell us that - repeatedly - over the years.

---
I've never made that claim, but what may make you think that I have is
that I've provided lots (hundreds?) of easy solutions for querents'
requests for help, here, over the last 20 years or so using 555s with
a sprinkling of discretes around them.
---

The creative energy might almost certainly have been better devoted
to getting more modern devices to do similar stuff,

---
Point taken, but even today a 555 is often the chip of choice for
those who want a a non-software/firmware encumbered solution for a
simple problem.

Last time I looked sales were brisk at about a billion per year, and
it seems like everybody's making them, so it's not like they're buggy
whips.
---

>but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks,

---
Thanks for that.
---

>despite the fact that it's usually easier to do the job some other way.

---
Noting that "easier" is subjective, I'd welcome your input as to what
you mean by "usually" and by "some other way".

At this point, a couple of schematics, one describing a circuit using
a 555 and yours, describing a "better" alternative, seems to be in
order.

John Fields

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:53:42 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, 14 August 2015 19:09:43 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com
Gave us:

Nearly everything runs on Win7 64 bit IME.

Not without signed drivers.

I just transitioned from XP to W7pro 64-bit. Everything works, and the
annoying UI interface changes have been mostly patched up. [1]

Old 16-bit apps won't run. Old 32-bit stuff works fine. And Google
Earth works again. Could have been a lot worse.

[1] how can I get rid of the "system view" junk on the left side of
Explorer panes?

---
Use Google Chrome instead.

John Fields

I meant the file explorer, not the browser.

---
Then you should have referred to it by its proper name, "Windows
Explorer."

I said that I was running Windows, and I didn't say "Internet
Explorer."

Indeed, but since there were two choices and you defined neither, your
assumption that clarity is inherent in your writing was flawed.

John Fields

You keep getting crazier.

---
Crazy is fun when designing new stuff, something stable old you
wouldn't know anything about.

Yes, 555 chips provide endless creative opportunities.

How would _you_ know?

Perhaps from listening to you tell us that - repeatedly - over the years.

---
I've never made that claim, but what may make you think that I have is
that I've provided lots (hundreds?) of easy solutions for querents'
requests for help, here, over the last 20 years or so using 555s with
a sprinkling of discretes around them.
---

The creative energy might almost certainly have been better devoted
to getting more modern devices to do similar stuff,

---
Point taken, but even today a 555 is often the chip of choice for
those who want a a non-software/firmware encumbered solution for a
simple problem.

Last time I looked sales were brisk at about a billion per year, and
it seems like everybody's making them, so it's not like they're buggy
whips.
---

but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks,

---
Thanks for that.
---

despite the fact that it's usually easier to do the job some other way.

---
Noting that "easier" is subjective, I'd welcome your input as to what
you mean by "usually" and by "some other way".

At this point, a couple of schematics, one describing a circuit using
a 555 and yours, describing a "better" alternative, seems to be in
order.

John Fields

Slowman's oscillator is still not working >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 14:23:13 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

- it's just that it isn't as cheap, as small or as efficient as the alternatives -

Post examples, retarded twit.

Only a retarded twit would need them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

>Not by people

snipped retarded attempt at acting as if you know what modern
designers do. You do not, SlowBoy.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 21:50:43 -0400, Martin Riddle
<martin_ridd@verizon.net> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:47:09 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:33:36 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> Gave us:

So is it portable 32-bit?

...Jim Thompson

Shouldn't you already know, smartass?

Easy there chap, your dealing with a master.

Cheers

DecadentLoser and ReallyFool are killfiled... don't feed the trolls.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.