On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:16:27 -0800, David Ryeburn
wrote:

....


Ironically if I were to get an Intel Mac, one of the programs I could no
longer use is the lean, mean 1992 Mac version of MS Word 5.1a, still
working nicely after 15 years on my year 2001 computer. This program
runs faster and better under Classic (i.e. Mac OS 9) within Mac OS X
than it ever did in the old days. Two layers of emulation are going on
here -- OS X is emulating OS 9, and the PowerPC version of OS 9 is
emulating a 680x0 CPU on a PPC chip (G5, G4, G3, or earlier) -- Word 5
was written before the days of the PPC chips. Classic is not readily
available for Intel Macs (there are semi-satisfactory hacks which make
it sort of work).

David, ex-W8EZE

I remember Word v. 5; now, if you could get Wordstar 3.3 to run on a
Mac, that'd be something :-)

bob
k5qwg

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:27:24 -0600, Bob Miller wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:16:27 -0800, David Ryeburn
wrote:

...


Ironically if I were to get an Intel Mac, one of the programs I could no
longer use is the lean, mean 1992 Mac version of MS Word 5.1a, still
working nicely after 15 years on my year 2001 computer. This program
runs faster and better under Classic (i.e. Mac OS 9) within Mac OS X
than it ever did in the old days. Two layers of emulation are going on
here -- OS X is emulating OS 9, and the PowerPC version of OS 9 is
emulating a 680x0 CPU on a PPC chip (G5, G4, G3, or earlier) -- Word 5
was written before the days of the PPC chips. Classic is not readily
available for Intel Macs (there are semi-satisfactory hacks which make
it sort of work).

I remember Word v. 5; now, if you could get Wordstar 3.3 to run on a
Mac, that'd be something :-)

I have WordStar 6.0 running on linux (under dosemu.) The last time I
ran WordStar in a micro$oft environment was probably around 1991.
That's when I cut over to OS/2. Starting around 2002, I started making
the transition to linux. All linux now. I keep the OS2 box for
nostalgia.

73
Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
*** Killfiling google posts: http://jonz.net/ng.htm

Thanks for the info. Since there's apparently no version control or
"standard" version of Linux or wine, I guess it's not really appropriate
to claim that "EZNEC runs on Linux using wine". My statement was based
on a single report, from someone using wine 0.9.2 with linux kernel
2.4.20-42.9. But even no two Windows installations are the same, so I'm
sure this is true for Linux also.

I've never purposefully set out to make EZNEC run under Linux -- the
market is much too small to justify any but the most minimal of effort.
The current state is, as I said, a result of a change made to make it
work under Vista, plus one small change to get around an apparent wine
bug (it handles the Windows API call WaitForInputIdle incorrectly). I'll
continue to make very minor changes if necessary to accommodate various
bugs in wine, but nothing major I'm afraid.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Jon Kåre Hellan LA4RT wrote:

OK. So the demo at http://www.eznec.com/DemoEXE/EZWDemo40Inst.exe
which I downloaded at 2007-02-22 12:43 UTC includes those latest
changes? If so, I have to report that it would not run on either of
Ubuntu Dapper (April 2006 release) or Ubuntu Edgy (October 2006).

In both cases, I removed wine and its config files from my system,
removed my .wine directory and did a fresh install of wine before
installing the EZNEC demo.

With Dapper, I got "EZNEC can't be run on a network from a
workstation". I wasn't, but the home directory is network mounted
using NFS. The wine pacakge was wine_0.9.9-0ubuntu2_i386.deb.

With Edgy, I got "Run-time error '13': Type mismatch. The wine pacakge
was wine_0.9.22-0ubuntu3_i386.deb.

I'll try Debian Sid later. They have wine 0.9.30.

Please don't interpret this as a complaint. Rather, take it as the
beginning of a compatibility list. And I'm still hoping that the demo
I tested was out of date :-)

73
LA4RT Jon, Trondheim, Norway

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:21:57 +0000, John Ferrell wrote:

I did not mean to be critical of Linux, I just could not restrain the
urge to expose my wish list!

That's fine. I was just trying to clarify the position of Linux in relation
to Windows. I'm afraid that at times those of us that do advocate Linux are
not as clear about it as we should be. It would be fantastic if there was
some magic OS that ran everything. Wait a minute! Linux is almost
there! ;-)

I have played with WinDRM and some of the Antenna book software with Wine. I
have also used Morse Runner with Wine and it's great fun.

73, de Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Thanks for the info. Since there's apparently no version control or
"standard" version of Linux or wine, I guess it's not really appropriate
to claim that "EZNEC runs on Linux using wine". My statement was based
on a single report, from someone using wine 0.9.2 with linux kernel
2.4.20-42.9. But even no two Windows installations are the same, so I'm
sure this is true for Linux also.

Good clue there Roy. The -42.9 would probably indicate that it is
Redhat or Redhat clone. I don't think anyone else uses that extended
kernel numbering format. The official kernels are almost always x.y.z,
with the rare special minor fix as x.y.z.a. The 42.9 signifies the
Redhat patch set applied, which often has nothing to do with official
releases, or sometimes it upgrades one kernel partially or completely to
another, unspecified, kernel. Redhat kernels are very confusing,
misleading, and have there own special bugs. This 2.4.20-42.9 may
actually mostly be 2.4.27, 7 versions newer. But you'll never know.

The "standard" in Linux is actually the kernel itself. The
distributions are the packages that surround the kernel. This includes
the desktop and all the other software that comes with the distribution
you install. Kind of like the VW bug engine and chassis and tons of
parts kits available. Except Redhat insists on changing random parts on
the engine, boring a 1600 out to 1950, and still calling it a 1.6 liter.

Before I am attacked, I am NOT running down Redhat here. I use Fedora
Core 6 at work, and am quite happy with it. As a desktop. As a server
platform however, their silly kernel numbering system often makes it
very hard to know how their kernel features map to the Linux standard
kernels. And when I need to be sure a piece of hardware such as a
particular SATA controller or SCSI RAID is supported, I am forced to
build a new kernel from scratch from a standard kernel source release.
Not hard, just a pain that would be alleviated by Redhat sticking to the
rules the rest of the distros (most) stick to.

tom
K0TAR

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Recompiling Fortran code which has no interaction with the user other
than getting text input from one file and writing text output to another
is a vastly different problem than re-writing a 60,000 line Visual Basic
interactive graphical user interface in another language then
recompiling for Linux while retaining full functionality of all
features. The difference between the two problems seems to escape a lot
of people, but problems do always look easier to solve when it's someone
else's job to solve them.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

J. B. Wood wrote:
In article , Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Cebu_Charlie wrote:
great Roy, but do us all a favor and port it out to linux so we dont
have to play with wine to use it.
I'm sure you're a cool guy and all, but I'm not about to spend a couple
of years of full time to do you a favor so you won't have to fool with
wine. Sometimes it's just a tough world.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Hello, Roy, and all. I have used a g77-compiled version of NEC-4 on a
Linux platform and it worked fine. The GNU compiler works with
FORTRAN-77
source code as well as C. I assume a g77 compilation of the NEC-2 source
code would also work. Of course this is just number-crunching NEC that
does not provide the other bells and whistles of EZNEC. Sincerely, and
73s from N4GGO,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337


Recompiling Visual Basic code in Linux is simpler now as Mono is VB
compatible! And free of course...

So if someone sits on the VB code for EZNEC, just rebuild it .Mono on Linux
BUT LINK IT STATICALLY! This means the code will run on almost all varietys
of Linux!

//Dan, M0DFI

Dan Andersson wrote:

...
So if someone sits on the VB code for EZNEC, just rebuild it .Mono on Linux
BUT LINK IT STATICALLY! This means the code will run on almost all varietys
of Linux!

//Dan, M0DFI

My gawd man. Let us hope no serious program is ever written in Visual
Basic!

Oh, I forgot, some idiots did do that, didn't they?

JS

John Smith I wrote:
Dan Andersson wrote:

...

So if someone sits on the VB code for EZNEC, just rebuild it .Mono on
Linux
BUT LINK IT STATICALLY! This means the code will run on almost all
varietys
of Linux!

//Dan, M0DFI


My gawd man. Let us hope no serious program is ever written in Visual
Basic!

Oh, I forgot, some idiots did do that, didn't they?

JS

eeah, just another structured programing language.

The latest seems to be 'D'.

A statically linked program, particularly one which is object based,
would result in a hefty sized binary. But it would work.

Chris

John Smith I writes:

Dan Andersson wrote:

...
So if someone sits on the VB code for EZNEC, just rebuild it .Mono on Linux
BUT LINK IT STATICALLY! This means the code will run on almost all varietys
of Linux!
//Dan, M0DFI

My gawd man. Let us hope no serious program is ever written in Visual
Basic!

Oh, I forgot, some idiots did do that, didn't they?

I don't think that was called for.

We may like Linux, but programming just for Windows doesn't make
somebody an idiot.

73 de LA4RT Jon, Trondheim, Norway

On 1 Mar, 06:41, Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
John Smith I writes:

Dan Andersson wrote:

...
So if someone sits on the VB code for EZNEC, just rebuild it .Mono on Linux
BUT LINK IT STATICALLY! This means the code will run on almost all varietys
of Linux!
//Dan, M0DFI

My gawd man. Let us hope no serious program is ever written in Visual
Basic!

Oh, I forgot, some idiots did do that, didn't they?

I don't think that was called for.

We may like Linux, but programming just for Windows doesn't make
somebody an idiot.

73 de LA4RT Jon, Trondheim, Norway

The bottom line should be is EZNEC accurate? Has the programming been
held within the confines provided by the original provider'
the U.S. government. Who overseas the content of this so called
program. If it has a patent then all would or should be revealed
in the patent disclosure. Has anybody taken this for his own use for
the advancement of science which is the reason for patents?
Has anybody upgraded the assigned patent for the sake of science
or has something not been disclosed to prevent true examination
and as such invalidates the patent? Does the government have the
option of review of all algorithms or are they in the same position
the country is with voting machines? Basically the purchaser is really
in the position of caveat emptor especially since all programs provide
different results!
Art