Re: bcd436hp

Tim L

AAAAh the good old days

"There are only 10 types of people in the world:

 Those who understand binary and those who don't"


In today's email world 97% of all email is spam, please don't contribute.


Came of age in the 60's, now I'm in my 60's ... Whoa, WTF happened?

From: <> on behalf of KENT HUFFORD <khufford@...>
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 3:27 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: [Uniden] bcd436hp
In 1980, we had a CPM computer that had 2 8" floppy drives.

I could load one disk that had a word processor. And it could load another
that had DBASE 2.

Of course when you loaded DBASE 2, the cursor was just a *, and every one
thought it was broke.


-----Original Message-----
From: <> On Behalf Of Jim Shipp
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Uniden] bcd436hp

Don't think there was ever a floppy disk larger than 8-inch. I never used
8-inch on a computer per se, but only on a dedicated "word processor."

At Saturday 03:00 PM 4/18/2020, you wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>I don't recall Motorola or GE ever supplying SW on 8" floppies.
>Somewhere around I have some 12" (I think) floppies - maybe larger.
>I recall Motorola having 5/25", then 3", then CDs.
>Ahhh yes. The BC101. That was the 5th generation.
>Many people don't realize that 101 was binary for V (5).
>Bearcat, Bearcat II, BC-III, BC-IV, BC-101. (The Electra days)
>I believe I still have at least one of each of the above.
>Then they jumped from 5 to 210 then started appending letters. :-\
>My favorite of the era? BC300. The BC100 (no letters) was a close
>second - a portable scanner that needed no crystals! And 16 channels?
>WOW! (or was it 10 channels?)
>Joe M.
>On 4/18/2020 2:27 PM, clive frazier via wrote:
>>Software use to come on 8 inch floppies. The computer booted up using
>>paper tape read through the teletype machine.
>>Having a 10 MEG hard drive was a luxury. People questioned the need
>>for such a large hard drive. It fit in a 19 inch rack. You would NEVER
>>need that much storage space.
>>And DOS was the operating system.
>>And the first Bearcat scanners that had push-buttons to program in the
>>frequency were a great step ahead of crystal controlled scanners.
>>Clive, K9FWF
>>On Friday, April 17, 2020, 01:16:12 PM CDT, Joe M. <mch@...> wrote:
>>One thing Jim didn't mention is the learning curve. A brief anecdote:
>>Back in the 80s, I learned radio programming on GE software (anyone
>>remember them?). Then when GE's delivery times got ridiculous (more
>>than a whole year from order to delivery - REALLY!) I had to learn
>>Motorola software. You would think programming one brand vs another
>>would be simple. NOT SO! It was almost like learning from scratch again.
>>Software came on 5.25" floppy disks back then. (anyone remember
>>A few key concepts for Motorola:
>>A "mode" is what most call a "channel".
>>A "codeplug" is what most call a "file" or "programming".
>>CG (Channel Guard) became PL (Private Line). (both are just CTCSS)
>>I won't even get into "templates". I'm sure Jim knows those too well.
>>So I can appreciate the fact that even Jim knows Motorola (assuming)
>>software, Sentinel is a completely different animal.
>>This is also true with scanner software from different authors. That
>>is why I have such little input on scanner SW recommendations and
>>"which is best". The "best" is what you know for the most part. That's
>>not to say it is the best overall, but it is the best *for you*.
>>Joe M.
>>On 4/17/2020 1:58 PM, Jim Walls wrote:
>>  > On 04/17/2020 10:38, Bernie Burawski wrote:
>>  >> You are right that the scanners are getting more difficult to
>>  >> but you then have to study the directions carefully; I just don't
>>  >> to have to read a long narrative and study the procedures until I
>>  >> comfortable programming. Scanning is getting more and more
>>  >> and that won't change,.
>>  >
>>  > That is a true statement.  Scanners are more complicated because
>>  > radio systems are more complicated.  If you think that programming
>>  > scanner is hard, try real radios.  I run a regional trunked system
>>for a
>>  > living, and writing codeplugs for various radios is a major part
>>of my
>>  > job.  The only advantage that we have is that we have KNOWN
>>  > information - as opposed to what scanner users often have, which
>>is only
>>  > partially right (or in many cases, flat out wrong) information on
>>  > frequencies, talkgroups, etc.  When I bought my SDS100, I
>>programmed the
>>  > system I run into it first from what RadioReference had, but then
>>  > hours fixing it.  For me that was largely academic since I have
>>  > radios on the system, but it helped me learn the Sentinal software
>>  > the scanner.
>>  >
>>         Virus-free.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.