23 May
2024
23 May
'24
7:53 p.m.
I case anyone is interested...
I've just passed on my "Mits Altair 8800" - this is a very historic system
from the 70s - it is:
First Personal Computer (long before IBM PC)
First S100 buss system
First system Bill Gates wrote code for (long before Microsoft)
I did write a pretty decent emulator for my exact Altair system some years
ago...
And with recent interest in the system, I've just updated it with a few
minor
improvements and a "cleaned up" edition of the software I created to
bootstrap
a hardware front-panel based system (no on-board ROM) via a serial port card
- requiring you to enter only 18 bytes through the front panel
So .. if you'd like to experience what it was like to use a system from the
70s - here's some of the things you can do:
Bootstrap it cold
Run NorthStar DOS (one of the first commercial DOSes)
Run DMF (Device Management Facility) - a DOS I created for it
- can you tell that at the time I was working on an IBM mainframe ... my
- OS name sounds a lot like various IBM mainframe packages at the time.
A few other software setups (for example there's a stand-alone bootable
FORTH)
Has Editors, Assemblers, BASIC and other tools from the era.
and a few games - some written by yours truly - some very early commercial
offerings (like "Cranston Manor Adventure", or "Valdez")
Note1: My Altair emulator was created under DOS and is a 16 bit program!
It does work very well with DosBox (I recommend the one on my site)
Note2: I've not updated the ALTAIR.ZIP on "Daves Old Computers" yet - you
can get the updated one from:
"Daves Old Computers" -> Personal -> Downloads ->
OlderDownloadsFromPrevious
- look for "ALTAIR" under: Simulators and Emulators
*** I don't follow this list nearly as much these days - if you want to
reach me, use the contact link on my site!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Search "Dave's Old Computers" see "my personal" at bottom!
23 May
23 May
11:04 p.m.
On 5/23/24 12:53, Dave Dunfield via cctalk wrote:
I've just passed on my "Mits Altair
8800" - this is a very historic system
from the 70s - it is:
First Personal Computer (long before IBM PC)
First S100 buss system
First system Bill Gates wrote code for (long before Microsoft)
I don't think the "first" applies in this case. The MCM/70 used an 8008
and was complete computer with storage and display--something the MITS
8800 was not.
I spent the weekend soldering together my 8800 (CPU, SIO and 2x 4K DRAM)
system, cursing the cheap white wire in the process. Finally got it
running with a TVT.
I couldn't wait to show it to a female working in my section. She
dropped by my apartment, took one look at the thing sitting on my
kitchen table and burst out laughing. "That's not a computer; it's a
toy!" was her withering reaction.
I don't know if my male ego ever recovered from that. And I *hated* the
DRAM boards.
I do, however, still have the MITS box. Haven't run it in nearly 40 years.
--Chuck
11:19 p.m.
I think if you can find that colleague of yours again and then say “who is laughing now?”
Regards,
Tarek Hoteit
AI Consultant, PhD
+1 360-838-3675
On May 23, 2024, at 16:05, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 5/23/24 12:53, Dave Dunfield via cctalk wrote:
I've just passed on my "Mits Altair
8800" - this is a very historic system
from the 70s - it is:
First Personal Computer (long before IBM PC)
First S100 buss system
First system Bill Gates wrote code for (long before Microsoft)
I don't think the "first" applies in this case. The MCM/70 used an 8008
and was complete computer with storage and display--something the MITS
8800 was not.
I spent the weekend soldering together my 8800 (CPU, SIO and 2x 4K DRAM)
system, cursing the cheap white wire in the process. Finally got it
running with a TVT.
I couldn't wait to show it to a female working in my section. She
dropped by my apartment, took one look at the thing sitting on my
kitchen table and burst out laughing. "That's not a computer; it's a
toy!" was her withering reaction.
I don't know if my male ego ever recovered from that. And I *hated* the
DRAM boards.
I do, however, still have the MITS box. Haven't run it in nearly 40 years.
--Chuck
24 May
24 May
12:04 a.m.
On Thu, 23 May 2024, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
I couldn't wait to show it to a female working in
my section. She
dropped by my apartment, took one look at the thing sitting on my
kitchen table and burst out laughing. "That's not a computer; it's a
toy!" was her withering reaction.
I don't know if my male ego ever recovered from that. And I *hated* the
DRAM boards.
Be very thankful that it was before you had more invested in the
relationship.
I almost failed to heed the warning (although FAR less personally
humiliating), when a new interest thought that "Hitchhiker's guide To The
Galaxy" was "stupid".
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
1:36 a.m.
When my wife (now my ex-wife) told me during a move that my 2 PDP-8/E
racks were not going to the new apartment because there wasn't room for
her roll top desk and my computer. And told me "they go or you go with
them but they are not moving with us", I should have seen the signs and
gone with them.
That would have saved me a bunch of money in the divorce AND I would
still have those beautiful PDP-8's.
I'm still trying to recover from that one.
On 5/23/2024 7:04 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2024, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
I couldn't wait to show it to a female
working in my section. She
dropped by my apartment, took one look at the thing sitting on my
kitchen table and burst out laughing. "That's not a computer; it's a
toy!" was her withering reaction.
I don't know if my male ego ever recovered from that. And I *hated* the
DRAM boards.
Be very thankful that it was before you had more invested in the
relationship.
I almost failed to heed the warning (although FAR less personally
humiliating), when a new interest thought that "Hitchhiker's guide To
The Galaxy" was "stupid".
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com 
1:54 a.m.
The MCM/70 was a Canadian invention though not certain it was a 'first' in
the microcomputer world. Some say the Kenbak 1 was. The Altair 8800, as I
argue, the first to reach a large audience. It demonstrated what was
possible to non-computer people.
Happy computing,
Murray :)
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 9:36 PM Mike Katz via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
When my wife (now my ex-wife) told me during a move
that my 2 PDP-8/E
racks were not going to the new apartment because there wasn't room for
her roll top desk and my computer. And told me "they go or you go with
them but they are not moving with us", I should have seen the signs and
gone with them.
That would have saved me a bunch of money in the divorce AND I would
still have those beautiful PDP-8's.
I'm still trying to recover from that one.
On 5/23/2024 7:04 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2024, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
wrote:
I couldn't wait to show it to a female
working in my section. She
dropped by my apartment, took one look at the thing sitting on my
kitchen table and burst out laughing. "That's not a computer; it's a
toy!" was her withering reaction.
I don't know if my male ego ever recovered from that. And I *hated* the
DRAM boards.
Be very thankful that it was before you had more invested in the
relationship.
I almost failed to heed the warning (although FAR less personally
humiliating), when a new interest thought that "Hitchhiker's guide To
The Galaxy" was "stupid".
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
9:44 a.m.
On Thu, 23 May 2024, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 5/23/24 12:53, Dave Dunfield via cctalk wrote:
> First Personal Computer (long before IBM PC)
This would go back to the 50s or earlier. The LGP-30 and comparable
machines are considered as personal computers, too.
> First system Bill Gates wrote code for (long
before Microsoft)
Didn't he write code for DEC machines at his school before that?
I don't think the "first" applies in
this case. The MCM/70 used an 8008
and was complete computer with storage and display--something the MITS
8800 was not.
And looking beyond the Great American barrier ;-) there was the MICRAL N,
much earlier than the MITS, and considered as the first complete
commercial microprocessor based computer, i.e. not a kit and available to
normal customers.
Christian
2:40 p.m.
On Fri, May 24, 2024, 2:45 AM Christian Corti via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2024, Chuck Guzis wrote:
But was it called a "personal computer"? And was it designed to be
"personal"?
On 5/23/24 12:53, Dave Dunfield via cctalk
wrote:
> First Personal Computer (long before IBM PC)
This would go back to the 50s or earlier. The LGP-30 and comparable
machines are considered as personal computers, too.
First system
Bill Gates wrote code for (long before Microsoft)
Didn't he write code for DEC machines at his
school before that?
Yes, poorly.
I don't think the "first" applies in
this case. The MCM/70 used an 8008
But it doesn't meet the other criteria Dave laid out. Most people these
days have never heard of the Micral, but even normies might've heard of the
Altair 8800 because of the very notoriety it has today because of it's
significance back then.
Sellam
and was complete computer with storage and
display--something the MITS
8800 was not.
And looking beyond the Great American barrier ;-) there was the MICRAL N,
much earlier than the MITS, and considered as the first complete
commercial microprocessor based computer, i.e. not a kit and available to
normal customers.
2:54 p.m.
On May 24, 2024, at 10:40 AM, Sellam Abraham via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
But it doesn't meet the other criteria Dave laid out. Most people these
days have never heard of the Micral, but even normies might've heard of the
Altair 8800 because of the very notoriety it has today because of it's
significance back then.
This is a familiar pattern in discovery and invention. In many cases, X was first
invented by A and then some time later by B. Or "discovered" instead of
"invented". And often the reason A is not generally identified as the first to
do X is that the way A did it didn't lead to something that was widely used.
For example:
Vikings were the first Europeans to discover America, but their voyages didn't start a
major movement so Columbus usually gets the credit.
FM radio was invented by Hanso Idzerda, but his approach was a bit odd and the economic
reasons for it disappeared some years later, so Edwin Armstrong gets the credit and
Idzerda is pretty much forgotten. In this case, the bias is so strong that attempts to
revise Wikipedia to correct the history get rejected. :-(
paul
2:57 p.m.
c'mon guys, the altair was the first device with a CPU chip and memory
--marketed to INDIVIDUALS, with the expectation that only one person or one related family
will use it
--intended to be for GENERAL PURPOSE
Two, IMHO, requirements for a PERSONAL COMPUTER. Note that a "personal
computer" can be used by business or colleges also without being disqualified to
being a personal computer
earlier devices were targeted as TRAINERS, controllers, or for embeded use,
or sold to organizations (business or colleges)
the LGP-30 was used by one person AT A TIME, but on different days used by different
people, who might or might not know each other, by some arbitrary scheduling algorithm.
The one I was familiar with was run by a tech or grad student, doing work not for self,
but for another, definitely outside the realm of "personal"
(I could be mistaken about the mentioned 8008 device, but I think that was a training
device, no?)
<pre>--Carey</pre>
3:34 p.m.
On 5/24/24 07:57, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
(I could be mistaken about the mentioned 8008 device,
but I think that was a training device, no?)
Do your homewoork--the MCM-70 ran APL, had cassette storage and a
display and keyboard. The MITS 8800 had nothing other than RAM and a
CPU. APL would have been a distant dream.
Of course, the MCM0/70 was Canadian, and not USAn...
--Chuck
4:14 p.m.
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 8:34 AM Chuck Guzis via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 5/24/24 07:57, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
This is on the Canonical List of ClassicCmp Debate Topics and is a dead
horse so beaten that there's nothing left but teeth and fur at this point.
Sellam
(I could be mistaken about the mentioned 8008
device, but I think that
was a training device, no?)
Do your homewoork--the MCM-70 ran APL, had cassette storage and a
display and keyboard. The MITS 8800 had nothing other than RAM and a
CPU. APL would have been a distant dream.
Of course, the MCM0/70 was Canadian, and not USAn...
--Chuck
4:45 p.m.
On 5/24/24 09:14, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
This is on the Canonical List of ClassicCmp Debate
Topics and is a dead
horse so beaten that there's nothing left but teeth and fur at this point.
Whatever--the MITS 8800 only I/O was a bunch of switches and LEDs. While
an I/O card could be added, that's as far as MITS went for several
years. Real I/O was left to the user (i.e. buy a terminal of some sort).
By way of comparison, the HP-41 was far more complete as a personal
computer--it had I/O, expandable storage, input and display. It was
Turing-complete. And personal? I suspect more HP41s were sold than the
entirety of MITS 8800s.
Just pointing out that "firsts" are very difficult. Even though, for
years, Shockley et al were trumpeted as the "inventors of the
transistor", it's noteworthy that their patent application was carefully
worded to avoid claims from work decades earlier by Julius Lilienfeld.
In an interesting twist of history, it's the Lilienfeld model of a MOS
transistor that prevails in our current technology, not the Shockley
junction device.
I would not be at all surprised if some obscure work turned up that
predates Lilienfeld. Certainly, "oscillating diodes" were known by his
time, but not commercialized.
"First" is a tricky term, like "best".
--Chuck
4:52 p.m.
On May 24, 2024, at 12:45 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
Just pointing out that "firsts" are very difficult. Even though, for
years, Shockley et al were trumpeted as the "inventors of the
transistor", it's noteworthy that their patent application was carefully
worded to avoid claims from work decades earlier by Julius Lilienfeld.
In an interesting twist of history, it's the Lilienfeld model of a MOS
transistor that prevails in our current technology, not the Shockley
junction device.
I once ran into a pre-WW2 data sheet (or ad?) for a transistor, indeed an FET that used
selenium as the semiconducting material. Most likely that was the Lilienfeld device.
Apparently they didn't work well, not surprising given the use of selenium, which is a
very marginal semiconductor. Speaking of which: some early computers tried to use
selenium diodes as circuit elements (for gates), with rather limited success. The MC ARRA
is an example.
paul
5:26 p.m.
On 5/24/24 09:52, Paul Koning wrote:
I once ran into a pre-WW2 data sheet (or ad?) for a transistor, indeed an FET that used
selenium as the semiconducting material. Most likely that was the Lilienfeld device.
Could also have been a device from Oskar Heil in the 1930s.
What really made the difference in the case of transistors of any
stripe, was the adoption of zone refining: (1951) William Gardner Pfann.
Pfann knew Shockley and devised one of the early point-contact
transistors, from a 1N26 diode. Zone-refining removed one of the
bugaboos that plagued early semiconductor research--that of getting
extremely pure material.
Pfann was a quiet, shy individual which perhaps explains why he doesn't
get the historical applause.
Something akin to the Tesla-Steinmetz treatment.
--Chuck
5:46 p.m.
On May 24, 2024, at 1:26 PM, Chuck Guzis
<cclist(a)sydex.com> wrote:
On 5/24/24 09:52, Paul Koning wrote:
No idea. I vaguely remember that it was French. It was in a pile of papers in my
father's office -- long since lost, unfortunately.
I once ran into a pre-WW2 data sheet (or ad?) for a transistor, indeed an FET that used
selenium as the semiconducting material. Most likely that was the Lilienfeld device.
Could also have been a device from Oskar Heil in the 1930s. What really made the difference in the case of
transistors of any
stripe, was the adoption of zone refining: (1951) William Gardner Pfann.
Pfann knew Shockley and devised one of the early point-contact
transistors, from a 1N26 diode. Zone-refining removed one of the
bugaboos that plagued early semiconductor research--that of getting
extremely pure material.
Pfann was a quiet, shy individual which perhaps explains why he doesn't
get the historical applause.
Something akin to the Tesla-Steinmetz treatment.
I also remember the name Czochralski -- creator of the process that produces single
crystals from which the wafers are sliced.
paul
6 p.m.
On Fri, 24 May 2024, Paul Koning wrote:
selenium, which is a very marginal semiconductor.
Speaking of which:
some early computers tried to use selenium diodes as circuit elements
(for gates), with rather limited success. The MC ARRA is an example.
The Anita electronic desktop calculators are a perfect example for the
usage of selenium rectifiers in logic gates.
Christian
5:38 p.m.
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 9:45 AM Chuck Guzis via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Just pointing out that "firsts" are very
difficult.
...
"First" is a tricky term, like
"best".
--Chuck
Yep, which is part of the canonical debate ;) This is why I and many
others in the hobby removed the term "first" from our vocabularies when
speaking of vintage computers.
It's kind of pointless anyway as people tend to want a starting point in
time at which they can point and say, "That is where it began", when in
reality all new invention is just a continuum of improvement over time and
occasionally a particular improvement makes more impact than others and
gets elevated to "first" status. It's nice for newspaper headlines and
such but for historians it's a waste of time (as we've borne witness to
countless times over the years as this discussion re-rages periodically).
Sellam
4:49 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
The problem with this debate is that the definition of Personal Computer
is totally fluid and can be written so that the writers opinion is fact.
Each computer system has contributed, in some way, to those that followed.
If you really want say what is the first "personal" computing machine
that did not require manual manipulation (like an abacus) it would have
to be the Antikythera Mechanism.
This orrery (model of the solar system) was built around 35 BC. Yes is
was an analog computer but technically it was the first personal
computer (single user, autonomous, hand held and portable too).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-ancient-greek-astronomical-ca…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
Ok, all of you computer brains out there, find me something older that
matches this (I'm sorry but the sun dial, sextant and compass don't
count because they don't calculate they only indicate).
Tongue firmly implanted in cheek 😛😂
On 5/24/2024 11:14 AM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 8:34 AM Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 5/24/24 07:57, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
This is on the Canonical List of ClassicCmp Debate Topics and is a dead
horse so beaten that there's nothing left but teeth and fur at this point.
Sellam (I could be mistaken about the mentioned 8008
device, but I think that
was a training device, no?)
Do your homewoork--the MCM-70 ran APL, had cassette storage and a
display and keyboard. The MITS 8800 had nothing other than RAM and a
CPU. APL would have been a distant dream.
Of course, the MCM0/70 was Canadian, and not USAn...
--Chuck
11:04 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On 5/24/24 11:49, Mike Katz via cctalk wrote:
The problem with this debate is that the definition of
Personal
Computer is totally fluid
A friend worked with an IBM 4361 at UMSL in St. Louis.
It was very
little used as the print and other unit record had a separate unit to
handle that traffic to the University of Missouri, Columbia's 370-145
(later upgraded a lot).
But the 4361 was his "PC" and was about ideal. He had the system, tape
drive, a few disks, and a 2741 and a couple of terminals to log on
with. Also a printer.
Ran VM/SP 5 as the OS, so you could do about anything you liked without
any impact on the system as far as creating a problem.
lots of toys if you knew where to get them. I don't think they had
anything but VM, or if they did wasn't complicated.
I think the 4361 was the best of all of those systems, because of the
integrated storage director.
It had plenty of channels if you needed to add anything, and usually
you'd have at least a tape drive on those.
All of the air cooled systems, 31, 41, 61 and 81 had integrated com
connections, so you could hook up a console, as well as a few other
"regular" consoles w/o adding a controller of any sort.
Thanks
Jim
25 May
25 May
3:14 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On 5/24/24 11:49, Mike Katz via cctalk wrote:
The problem with this debate is that the definition of
Personal Computer is totally fluid and can be written so
that the writers opinion is fact.
Yes, the Bendix G-15 was said to be the first personal
computer. It was as big as a refrigerator, and weighed a LOT
more, and drew much more power. (300 vacuum tubes, 3000
Germanium diodes, drum memory.) but, one guy could program
it and run it.
The LINC comes in a close second.
Jon
3:20 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On Sat, May 25, 2024, 8:14 AM Jon Elson via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
On 5/24/24 11:49, Mike Katz via cctalk wrote:
I know a guy in a basement in Germany that has three supercomputers up and
running, that he installed and maintains himself. Except for when he
invites guests over, they're very personal.
That being said, I don't know that the Bendix G-15 fits the bill, but the
LINC very much does, especially considering it was kinda of intended to be
a single user machine, and at least one of the team that put it together
brought one home and used it there.
If I were writing the definitive history of personal computing, I'd maybe
start with SIMON, then the LINC, then eventually the Altair.
Sellam
The problem with this debate is that the
definition of
Personal Computer is totally fluid and can be written so
that the writers opinion is fact.
Yes, the Bendix G-15 was said to be the first personal
computer. It was as big as a refrigerator, and weighed a LOT
more, and drew much more power. (300 vacuum tubes, 3000
Germanium diodes, drum memory.) but, one guy could program
it and run it.
The LINC comes in a close second.
Jon
6:05 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
When announced and sold new, were the SIMON, LINC and G-15 sold and described as, in the
exact words, "personal computer"? Did the guy with multiple supercomputers in
his basement buy them NEW, to use them for their designed purpose? If not they are just
memorabilia, like a victrola.
Somebody claimed the altair was the first time the actual words "personal
computer" were used.
If so, I would say that is the correct definition. Period. Final Answer, Regis.
I cannot redefine my 8-core gaming machine with 3 NVIDIA cards as a
"supercomputer" just because I want to and it has more memory and megaflops than
some other device that historically was defined as a supercomputer. I cannot take 250
Radio Shack Color Computers and network them to cooperatively solve a single problem, and
then call that a supercomputer, unless somebody did that when the computer was still being
sold new (yes, I know there were "networks" for radio shack computers, but AFAIK
they only let some number of students share resources from the central teacher's
computer and in most or all cases could not talk directly to each other).
specifically, like the altair, which seems to fit common usages of the words
"personal" and "computer":
"something sold NEW to private citizens, for personal enjoyment and not for
gain"
Granted some buyers hoped to develop software or hardware they could sell. Some may have
had a day job in computers, but almost as likely might have been cooks or door-to-door
bible salesmen (statistically not absolutely).
Because ONE *developer* of the LINC used his position to take one home and use it the way
we currently use "personal computers" does not mean EVERY OTHER LINC was also a
personal computer. Did he pay the full street price? I'm guessing not. If you want
to put a plaque on that single unit, fine, but I am sure other one-off home brew machines
need to be included too. I think here were are talking about production machines
available for sale to all.
I remember seeing the original development unit for the Amdahl V6, made with descreet
components and much larger (and slower) than the production models, which although it was
nicknamed "Gene's machine", but that was NOT a personal computer, sorry.
The ISA cards that anybody could buy to run S/370 operating systems in a PC should
qualify, IMHO, but not 4331 level units. That is getting iffy, i'd like to see
statistics on how many were purchased by schools and business for their employees to use
AS LONG AS THEY REMAINED EMPLOYED, verses how many were purchased by individuals and run
in their place of resident. I'm guessing at least 5% were sold to private
individuals, and if anybody quibbles that is not enough, I am willing to not include them.
I at least thought about buying one, perhaps there were ongoing license charges that
ended that dream?
I believe some obsolete warships (certainly ICBM silos) have been sold to private
individuals. Does that retroactively mean the original warships and ICBMs are
"personal yachts and weapons"? I'll bet one rich guy bought a Mississippi
riverboat for personal use, does that make them *ALL* into "personal pleasure
craft"? That is a slippery slope.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
On 05/25/2024 10:20 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Sat, May 25, 2024, 8:14 AM Jon Elson via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On 5/24/24 11:49, Mike Katz via cctalk wrote:
I know a guy in a basement in Germany that has three supercomputers up and
running, that he installed and maintains himself. Except for when he
invites guests over, they're very personal.
That being said, I don't know that the Bendix G-15 fits the bill, but the
LINC very much does, especially considering it was kinda of intended to be
a single user machine, and at least one of the team that put it together
brought one home and used it there.
If I were writing the definitive history of personal computing, I'd maybe
start with SIMON, then the LINC, then eventually the Altair.
Sellam
> The problem with this debate is that the
definition of
Personal Computer is totally fluid and can be written so
that the writers opinion is fact.
Yes, the Bendix G-15 was said to be the first personal
computer. It was as big as a refrigerator, and weighed a LOT
more, and drew much more power. (300 vacuum tubes, 3000
Germanium diodes, drum memory.) but, one guy could program
it and run it.
The LINC comes in a close second.
Jon
6:23 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 11:05 AM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Because ONE *developer* of the LINC used his position to take one home and
use it the way we currently use "personal computers" does not mean EVERY
OTHER LINC was also a personal computer. Did he pay the full street
price? I'm guessing not. If you want to put a plaque on that single unit,
fine, but I am sure other one-off home brew machines need to be included
too. I think here were are talking about production machines available for
sale to all.
I agree with you on the Altair. I was only submitting my comment on the
LINC in the scenario where we're throwing context out the window and
relying on revisionism to define the term. But in actuality, there were
more than one LINC made, and the design was the basis for the DEC MINC-11.
So it has some of the requirements.
I believe some obsolete warships (certainly ICBM
silos) have been sold to
private individuals. Does that retroactively mean the original warships and
ICBMs are "personal yachts and weapons"? I'll bet one rich guy bought a
Mississippi riverboat for personal use, does that make them *ALL* into
"personal pleasure craft"? That is a slippery slope.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
Hey, if the government needs a fully-provisioned aircraft carrier to defend
the nation, then so do I.
Sellam
6:27 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On 5/25/24 13:05, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
When announced and sold new, were the SIMON, LINC and
G-15 sold and described as, in the exact words, "personal computer"? Did the
guy with multiple supercomputers in his basement buy them NEW, to use them for their
designed purpose? If not they are just memorabilia, like a victrola.
The Bendix G-15 came out in 1956! It cost about $60,000 in
1956 Dollars. The first LINC machines were built at an MIT
summer school by grad students who would then take them back
to their home institutions and use then in biomedical
research labs. The LINCs in this case cost about $50K, and
were built starting in 1961-62. The term "personal
computer" was not coined until a LONG time after.
Jon
8:33 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
While the LGP-30(vacuum tube/drum), G-15(vacuum tube/drum), and PB-250(transistor/delay
lines) predated it, the ground-breaking Olivetti Programma 101(transistor/delay line)
programmable desktop calculator was officially called a "personal computer" in
some of its advertising and sales literature. It was introduced in October of 1965.
Late in the game as far as single-user, standard AC-line-powered computing devices
compared to those machines and probably others, but those machines, AFAIK, were not
advertised nor specified as "personal computers".
That said, I am much more aware of electronic calculator history than computer history, so
I could be entirely biased here. Also, the Programma 101, as I've stated here before,
only scratches the definition of a true computer in that it is not capable of handling any
data type but floating point binary-coded decimal numbers, has very limited data storage
capability, and had no peripheral interfacing capability.
There were quite a number of single-user computing devices made and sold that ran on
standard AC power, and were vastly more capable than the Programma 101, and predated it,
but, AFAIK, were not advertised or particularly marketed as "personal
computers".
One that comes to mind is the Monroe Monrobot III(vacuum tube/drum), introduced in
February, 1955.
Another is the IBM 610 "Auto Point"(vacuum tube/drum) computer, introduced in
1957.
It was originally named the "Personal Automatic Computer" (PAC) by its
designer.
I'm sure that there are quite a few other machines developed in the mid-to-late
1950's that would qualify as personal computing devices, but these two are the ones
that I'm aware of that seem to fit the bill. Some of these may actually have been
capable of manipulating data types other than decimal numbers.
In 1962, Casio introduced its AL-1 programmable (up to 360 steps) relay-based electric
calculator. It was definitely intended as a personal computing device, and calculations
could be performed manually from a keyboard much like a regular calculator, but also
automatically via plastic toothed gears that would have teeth broken off of them to encode
program steps. The gears would be electrically read by the machine and directed the
machine to perform computer-like operations.
I'm not arguing that any of these, including the Programma 101, are the first
"personal computers" by any means. I'm just adding some thoughts to the
discussion.
Rick Bensene
The Old Calculator Museum
https://oldcalculatormuseum.com
9:26 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
(Rick--IIRC, some later Curta (knockoffs?) could do square roots too, is that true, do you
have one?)
OK, I'll loosen up, or make exceptions.
Maybe some devices before the altair used the exact or inexact words "personal
computer".
but they did not "create a market" or lead directly to a series of similar,
competing products, and do not come anywhere close to what we think of as a "personal
computer" now. The Altair is very different from a modern personal computer, but
still has more similarities and a continuous chain of intermediate stages. Part of what
makes a personal computer to us is that we can easily switch from one to another. That
would not have been possible between the LGP-30, LINC, etc.
I still ask the question, what fraction of the G-15, LINC, IBM 610, Programma 101, etc,
were purchased as "personal" devices by an individual, for personal use, and
from household funds rather than via a corporate (including educational) purchase-order?
Other terminology:
IIRC the first computers that were sold as "supercomputers" were scalar, maybe
with a few more processors than the generation before, but programmed in the same manner.
Then shortly came the massively parallel "supercomputers" created from commodity
microcomputer chips, and the term supercomputer has transitioned to mean them.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
On 05/25/2024 3:33 PM CDT Rick Bensene via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
While the LGP-30(vacuum tube/drum), G-15(vacuum tube/drum), and PB-250(transistor/delay
lines) predated it, the ground-breaking Olivetti Programma 101(transistor/delay line)
programmable desktop calculator was officially called a "personal computer" in
some of its advertising and sales literature. It was introduced in October of 1965.
Late in the game as far as single-user, standard AC-line-powered computing devices
compared to those machines and probably others, but those machines, AFAIK, were not
advertised nor specified as "personal computers".
That said, I am much more aware of electronic calculator history than computer history,
so I could be entirely biased here. Also, the Programma 101, as I've stated here
before, only scratches the definition of a true computer in that it is not capable of
handling any data type but floating point binary-coded decimal numbers, has very limited
data storage capability, and had no peripheral interfacing capability.
There were quite a number of single-user computing devices made and sold that ran on
standard AC power, and were vastly more capable than the Programma 101, and predated it,
but, AFAIK, were not advertised or particularly marketed as "personal
computers".
One that comes to mind is the Monroe Monrobot III(vacuum tube/drum), introduced in
February, 1955.
Another is the IBM 610 "Auto Point"(vacuum tube/drum) computer, introduced in
1957.
It was originally named the "Personal Automatic Computer" (PAC) by its
designer.
I'm sure that there are quite a few other machines developed in the mid-to-late
1950's that would qualify as personal computing devices, but these two are the ones
that I'm aware of that seem to fit the bill. Some of these may actually have been
capable of manipulating data types other than decimal numbers.
In 1962, Casio introduced its AL-1 programmable (up to 360 steps) relay-based electric
calculator. It was definitely intended as a personal computing device, and calculations
could be performed manually from a keyboard much like a regular calculator, but also
automatically via plastic toothed gears that would have teeth broken off of them to encode
program steps. The gears would be electrically read by the machine and directed the
machine to perform computer-like operations.
I'm not arguing that any of these, including the Programma 101, are the first
"personal computers" by any means. I'm just adding some thoughts to the
discussion.
Rick Bensene
The Old Calculator Museum
https://oldcalculatormuseum.com
11:42 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
I'm sorry but I beg to differ with you here. The DEC PDP line of single
user interactive computers (as opposed to batch processing only systems)
started in the late 1950's and early 1960's and spawned many generations
as well as copies and other companies (Data General being the most well
known of these).Yes multi user time sharing operating systems we added
later on but initially they were single user interactive, (DEC 10 & 20
excepted).Does a computer lose its "Personal" identification if it can
handle multiple users as an option. There were multiple user time
sharing Operating Systems for many early personal computers (Unix,
Xenix, MP/M, Uniflex, OS/9, etc.). Even the aforementioned PDP computers
ran multi-user time sharing systems. Does that, then, invalidate them
for consideration as a personal computer? Does that make any Linux
machine not a personal computer, by definition, because it can handle
more than one user or task? As I have said earlier in this thead and its
fore bearers, the term Personal Computer is so non-specific that we can
argue from here to Alpha Centauri and back without coming up with an
agreed upon definition. So, until a concrete definition can be made, the
discussion of the answer is completely moot. I stick by my original
challenge, find a calculating device that predates the Antikythera
Mechanism (36 BCE). Simple measuring devices like the sun dial and
sextant don't count as they don't calculate, they measure.
On 5/25/2024 4:26 PM, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
(Rick--IIRC, some later Curta (knockoffs?) could do
square roots too, is that true, do you have one?)
OK, I'll loosen up, or make exceptions.
Maybe some devices before the altair used the exact or inexact words "personal
computer".
but they did not "create a market" or lead directly to a series of similar,
competing products, and do not come anywhere close to what we think of as a "personal
computer" now. The Altair is very different from a modern personal computer, but
still has more similarities and a continuous chain of intermediate stages. Part of what
makes a personal computer to us is that we can easily switch from one to another. That
would not have been possible between the LGP-30, LINC, etc.
I still ask the question, what fraction of the G-15, LINC, IBM 610, Programma 101, etc,
were purchased as "personal" devices by an individual, for personal use, and
from household funds rather than via a corporate (including educational) purchase-order?
Other terminology:
IIRC the first computers that were sold as "supercomputers" were scalar, maybe
with a few more processors than the generation before, but programmed in the same manner.
Then shortly came the massively parallel "supercomputers" created from commodity
microcomputer chips, and the term supercomputer has transitioned to mean them.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
> On 05/25/2024 3:33 PM CDT Rick Bensene via cctalk<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
>
>
> While the LGP-30(vacuum tube/drum), G-15(vacuum tube/drum), and
PB-250(transistor/delay lines) predated it, the ground-breaking Olivetti Programma
101(transistor/delay line) programmable desktop calculator was officially called a
"personal computer" in some of its advertising and sales literature. It was
introduced in October of 1965.
>
> Late in the game as far as single-user, standard AC-line-powered computing devices
compared to those machines and probably others, but those machines, AFAIK, were not
advertised nor specified as "personal computers".
>
> That said, I am much more aware of electronic calculator history than computer
history, so I could be entirely biased here. Also, the Programma 101, as I've stated
here before, only scratches the definition of a true computer in that it is not capable of
handling any data type but floating point binary-coded decimal numbers, has very limited
data storage capability, and had no peripheral interfacing capability.
>
> There were quite a number of single-user computing devices made and sold that ran on
standard AC power, and were vastly more capable than the Programma 101, and predated it,
but, AFAIK, were not advertised or particularly marketed as "personal
computers".
>
> One that comes to mind is the Monroe Monrobot III(vacuum tube/drum), introduced in
February, 1955.
>
> Another is the IBM 610 "Auto Point"(vacuum tube/drum) computer, introduced
in 1957.
> It was originally named the "Personal Automatic Computer" (PAC) by its
designer.
>
> I'm sure that there are quite a few other machines developed in the mid-to-late
1950's that would qualify as personal computing devices, but these two are the ones
that I'm aware of that seem to fit the bill. Some of these may actually have been
capable of manipulating data types other than decimal numbers.
>
> In 1962, Casio introduced its AL-1 programmable (up to 360 steps) relay-based
electric calculator. It was definitely intended as a personal computing device, and
calculations could be performed manually from a keyboard much like a regular calculator,
but also automatically via plastic toothed gears that would have teeth broken off of them
to encode program steps. The gears would be electrically read by the machine and directed
the machine to perform computer-like operations.
>
> I'm not arguing that any of these, including the Programma 101, are the first
"personal computers" by any means. I'm just adding some thoughts to the
discussion.
>
> Rick Bensene
> The Old Calculator Museum
> https://oldcalculatormuseum.com
26 May
26 May
6:50 a.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
On 2024-05-25 5:42 p.m., Mike Katz via cctalk wrote:
I'm sorry but I beg to differ with you here. The DEC PDP line of single
user interactive computers (as opposed to batch processing only systems)
started in the late 1950's and early 1960's and spawned many generations
as well as copies and other companies (Data General being the most well
known of these).Yes multi user time sharing operating systems we added
later on but initially they were single user interactive, (DEC 10 & 20
excepted).Does a computer lose its "Personal" identification if it can
handle multiple users as an option. There were multiple user time
sharing Operating Systems for many early personal computers (Unix,
Xenix, MP/M, Uniflex, OS/9, etc.). Even the aforementioned PDP computers
ran multi-user time sharing systems. Does that, then, invalidate them
for consideration as a personal computer? Does that make any Linux
machine not a personal computer, by definition, because it can handle
more than one user or task? As I have said earlier in this thead and its
fore bearers, the term Personal Computer is so non-specific that we can
argue from here to Alpha Centauri and back without coming up with an
agreed upon definition. So, until a concrete definition can be made, the
discussion of the answer is completely moot. I stick by my original
challenge, find a calculating device that predates the Antikythera
Mechanism (36 BCE). Simple measuring devices like the sun dial and
sextant don't count as they don't calculate, they measure.
I think the most important thing for a Personal Computer,
is the average Joe, can afford and use it. The second thing is
to have ample memory and IO to run useful programs. The basic Apple
I,II does not count as many others as it had BASIC in ROM and tape IO.
The third thing is a real OS. Nobody has one, as a personal computer.
CP/M and MSDOS does not handle IRQ's. Unix for the PDP-11 is real
operating system but not personal as it requires a admin,and a swapping
media.
10:59 a.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
On Sun, 26 May 2024 at 07:50, ben via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I think the most important thing for a Personal Computer,
is the average Joe, can afford and use it.
Yes, agreed.
The second thing is
to have ample memory and IO to run useful programs.
Now, you see, I'd agree with that but then you immediately go and blow
it out of the water with this:
The basic Apple
I,II does not count as many others as it had BASIC in ROM and tape IO.
Hang on. So what?
My first computer was a Sinclair ZX Spectrum. 48kB RAM, tape cassette
storage, floating-point BASIC with graphics commands in ROM. It was an
ample amount of RAM, it could run useful programs, and I both bought
hundreds of them and wrote my own.
What kind of subjective elitist BS is this?!
My Spectrum outspecced many early CP/M machines and they sold in the
hundreds of thousands to millions (worldwide, amalgamating all brands)
and spawned a multi-TRILLION-dollar industry, but in the opinion of
the mighty Mr I-don't-need-a-capital-letter-or-a-surname ben, they
don't count?
Get in the sea.
Utter tosh. You dismiss an entire decade's worth of hardware that
created careers, shaped the economies of nations, and arguably caused
the collapse of communism in Europe because you don't approve?
No. Not for a second, not to be even entertained for amusement for an
instant, no.
The third thing is a real OS. Nobody has one, as a
personal computer.
Tell me you never used DOS in anger, never saw CCP/M and CDOS and QNX
and DESQview, or Xenix, or really knew the PC platform at all, without
telling me. Utter bilgewater. Apparently you never even saw Borland
Sidekick.
Ill-informed nonsense.
CP/M and MSDOS does not handle IRQ's.
Wrong.
Unix for the PDP-11 is real
operating system but not personal as it requires a admin,and a swapping
media.
Irrelevant.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
12:32 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
Well said.
On Sun, 26 May 2024, 6:59 pm Liam Proven via cctalk, <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2024 at 07:50, ben via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
I think the most important thing for a Personal Computer,
is the average Joe, can afford and use it.
Yes, agreed.
The second thing is
to have ample memory and IO to run useful programs.
Now, you see, I'd agree with that but then you immediately go and blow
it out of the water with this:
The basic Apple
I,II does not count as many others as it had BASIC in ROM and tape IO.
Hang on. So what?
My first computer was a Sinclair ZX Spectrum. 48kB RAM, tape cassette
storage, floating-point BASIC with graphics commands in ROM. It was an
ample amount of RAM, it could run useful programs, and I both bought
hundreds of them and wrote my own.
What kind of subjective elitist BS is this?!
My Spectrum outspecced many early CP/M machines and they sold in the
hundreds of thousands to millions (worldwide, amalgamating all brands)
and spawned a multi-TRILLION-dollar industry, but in the opinion of
the mighty Mr I-don't-need-a-capital-letter-or-a-surname ben, they
don't count?
Get in the sea.
Utter tosh. You dismiss an entire decade's worth of hardware that
created careers, shaped the economies of nations, and arguably caused
the collapse of communism in Europe because you don't approve?
No. Not for a second, not to be even entertained for amusement for an
instant, no.
The third thing is a real OS. Nobody has one, as
a personal computer.
Tell me you never used DOS in anger, never saw CCP/M and CDOS and QNX
and DESQview, or Xenix, or really knew the PC platform at all, without
telling me. Utter bilgewater. Apparently you never even saw Borland
Sidekick.
Ill-informed nonsense.
CP/M and MSDOS does not handle IRQ's.
Wrong.
Unix for the PDP-11 is real
operating system but not personal as it requires a admin,and a swapping
media.
Irrelevant.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
2:26 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
At the time of its release, (1) learning to program and (2) blinking lights was enough to
be a useful device.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
On 05/26/2024 5:59 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2024 at 07:50, ben via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I think the most important thing for a Personal Computer,
is the average Joe, can afford and use it.
Yes, agreed.
The second thing is
to have ample memory and IO to run useful programs.
Now, you see, I'd agree with that but then you immediately go and blow
it out of the water with this:
The basic Apple
I,II does not count as many others as it had BASIC in ROM and tape IO.
Hang on. So what?
4:56 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
On Sun, 26 May 2024, ben via cctalk wrote:
I think the most important thing for a Personal
Computer,
is the average Joe, can afford and use it. The second thing is
to have ample memory and IO to run useful programs. The basic Apple I,II
does not count as many others as it had BASIC in ROM and tape IO.
The third thing is a real OS. Nobody has one, as a personal computer.
CP/M and MSDOS does not handle IRQ's. Unix for the PDP-11 is real operating
system but not personal as it requires a admin,and a swapping
media.
So, basically, the first "Personal Computer" does not yet exist, and all
of those being discussed are merely predecessors for it.
I can definitely agree with that,
although not necessarily with your specific list of requirements.
Although there need to be some that Joe Average can afford, they don't all
need to be, as a requirement; Tony Cole can build a gold plated one, and
billg can spec optional features that the rest of us can't afford - if I
were designing billg's house, I'd build some "personal" computing
capability in the walls, or filling the main rooms, and bedroom could be
a cot in the walls.
"Ample memory"??!? perhaps that should be TerrorBytes.
I/O??!? Does that need to be built in, in the minimum purchase
configuration, or merely provision for it externally?
"Real OS"? While I don't agree with your specific examples of
inadequacies, I will readily concede that nothing so far is ready for the
title.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
6:11 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
On 2024-05-26 10:56 a.m., Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2024, ben via cctalk wrote:
I want more books and shelves to with them.
That a side, how many people here still use the 16Kb (favorite machine)
with tape IO?
I did use a CP/M machine once, but the 8" drive was a bit sticky.
You rap the drive to get it unstuck, but if you rap it too hard
the machine would reset.
I think the most important thing for a Personal
Computer,
is the average Joe, can afford and use it. The second thing is
to have ample memory and IO to run useful programs. The basic Apple
I,II does not count as many others as it had BASIC in ROM and tape IO.
The third thing is a real OS. Nobody has one, as a personal computer.
CP/M and MSDOS does not handle IRQ's. Unix for the PDP-11 is real
operating system but not personal as it requires a admin,and a swapping
media.
So, basically, the first "Personal Computer" does not yet exist, and all
of those being discussed are merely predecessors for it.
I can definitely agree with that,
although not necessarily with your specific list of requirements.
Although there need to be some that Joe Average can afford, they don't
all need to be, as a requirement; Tony Cole can build a gold plated one,
and billg can spec optional features that the rest of us can't afford -
if I were designing billg's house, I'd build some "personal" computing
capability in the walls, or filling the main rooms, and bedroom could
be a cot in the walls. "Ample memory"??!? perhaps that should be
TerrorBytes.
I/O??!? Does that need to be built in, in the minimum purchase
configuration, or merely provision for it externally?
For non graphics, I say 64kb for a 8 bit machine with basic in rom.
CP/M 32K.
"Real OS"? While I don't agree with
your specific examples of
inadequacies, I will readily concede that nothing so far is ready for
the title.
CP/M was the cats meyow in the 1970's,but there was other systems out like
flex for the 6800, or later OS/9 for the 6809. Don't they get a chance
too for real OS.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
8:01 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
On 5/26/24 11:11, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 2024-05-26 10:56 a.m., Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
I did use a CP/M machine once, but the 8" drive
was a bit sticky.
You rap the drive to get it unstuck, but if you rap it too hard
the machine would reset.
Fred, just forget it. We belong to a bygone era and there's no sense in
trying to explain things to the younger folk.
However, perhaps someone can tell me why an HP-41 or TI SR-52 isn't a
"personal computer"...
--Chuck
8:44 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
On 2024-05-26 2:01 p.m., Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 5/26/24 11:11, ben via cctalk wrote:
You can't play space invaders on it.
On 2024-05-26 10:56 a.m., Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
I did use a CP/M machine once, but the 8"
drive was a bit sticky.
You rap the drive to get it unstuck, but if you rap it too hard
the machine would reset.
Fred, just forget it. We belong to a bygone era and there's no sense in
trying to explain things to the younger folk.
However, perhaps someone can tell me why an HP-41 or TI SR-52 isn't a
"personal computer"...
--Chuck
Since IBM defined the PC, let's leave it that for what a PC is.
The technology was only ready at the 1981 ish time frame, for the
personal market.
I favor the IBM 1130 as the first personal computer.
Most of my nit picking is with having low income,
quality software and hardware is hard to find.
My personal gripe, is that rather than building
a cleaner text OS,every body jumped on having
TV video game operating systems, like windows.
The mac was better, but I don't think it did a
8x10 full page of text, like the original experimental
operating systems.
9:14 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
if it only manipulates numeric data, it is a calculator. It must be able to search,
rearrange look up, compare, and display characters. I would have thought that to be
obvious. I don'care if it has 99 terabites of high speed memory and does fourier
transforms in minus 0 seconds, if it cannot give a text description of the answer, it is a
calculator.
Also something about arbritray branches to any location (ok, any executable location if
something has separate code and data memory).
<pre>--Carey</pre>
On 05/26/2024 3:01 PM CDT Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 5/26/24 11:11, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 2024-05-26 10:56 a.m., Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
I did use a CP/M machine once, but the 8"
drive was a bit sticky.
You rap the drive to get it unstuck, but if you rap it too hard
the machine would reset.
Fred, just forget it. We belong to a bygone era and there's no sense in
trying to explain things to the younger folk.
However, perhaps someone can tell me why an HP-41 or TI SR-52 isn't a
"personal computer"...
--Chuck
11:27 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
On 5/26/24 14:14, CAREY SCHUG wrote:
if it only manipulates numeric data, it is a
calculator. It must be able to search, rearrange look up, compare, and display
characters. I would have thought that to be obvious. I don'care if it has 99
terabites of high speed memory and does fourier transforms in minus 0 seconds, if it
cannot give a text description of the answer, it is a calculator.
Also something about arbritray branches to any location (ok, any executable location if
something has separate code and data memory).
HP-41 has an alpha-numeric display, and keyboard, and is
Turing-complete. Really a phenomenal little gizmo. Read up on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-41C
--Chuck
27 May
27 May
12:09 a.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
i'm sorry but you are misinformed about the HP-41C Calculator.
The HP-41 was the first calculator that had Alpha-Numerics. It could
very well give text descriptions, text prompts and even manipulate
text. It also had a full goto and gosub to alphanumeric labels.
It had a very sophisticated programming language that could be user
enhanced in both user (FOCAL [No Relation to DEC's Focal]) language and
machine language.
The user community enhanced the user language through the use of
"Synthetic Programming". This is creating additional user commands not
originally implemented by HP.
It came with four expansion slots built into it for RAM, ROM and
peripherals.
It supported several different file systems in both RAM and digital media.
There was a forth interpreter available for it as well.
Here is a list of some of the peripherals available for it (I know there
are way more than this list):
Direct Plug In:
Magnetic Card Reader
Bar Code Reader
20 Column Thermal Printer
HI-IL (2 wire network)
EEPROM Box for Machine Code
RAM Box for Machine Code
Additional Program Memory
Extended Memory
ROM Module for user code and machine code (both from HP and user
written).
HP-IL Peripherals
20 Column Thermal Printer
80 Column Ink Jet Printer
Digital Magnetic Tape Drive
3 1/2" Floppy Disk Drive
RS-232 Interface
IEE-488 (GPIB) Interface
Video Interface (40 column, 80 column, graphics)
HP-IL Interface for Epson MX-80 dot matrix printer
Digital Multimeter
Frequency Counter
20 Channel Data Acquisition Box
The CPU had a 10 bit instruction word with a 56 bit data word. With a
Harvard Architecture (separate RAM and ROM address spaces). The RAM
address space was 8192 8 bit bytes. The ROM address space was 65536 10
bit words. With paging the machine code address space was expanded to
192K maximum)
That hardly sounds like just a calculator to me. It could be called the
first Pocket PC.
On 5/26/2024 4:14 PM, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
if it only manipulates numeric data, it is a
calculator. It must be able to search, rearrange look up, compare, and display
characters. I would have thought that to be obvious. I don'care if it has 99
terabites of high speed memory and does fourier transforms in minus 0 seconds, if it
cannot give a text description of the answer, it is a calculator.
Also something about arbritray branches to any location (ok, any executable location if
something has separate code and data memory).
<pre>--Carey</pre>
> On 05/26/2024 3:01 PM CDT Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
>
>
> On 5/26/24 11:11, ben via cctalk wrote:
>> On 2024-05-26 10:56 a.m., Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>> I did use a CP/M machine once, but the 8" drive was a bit sticky.
>> You rap the drive to get it unstuck, but if you rap it too hard
>> the machine would reset.
> Fred, just forget it. We belong to a bygone era and there's no sense in
> trying to explain things to the younger folk.
>
> However, perhaps someone can tell me why an HP-41 or TI SR-52 isn't a
> "personal computer"...
>
> --Chuck
12:40 a.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
Mike Katz wrote:
I'm sorry but you are misinformed about the HP-41C
Calculator.
The HP-41 was the first calculator that had
Alpha-Numerics.
That is not true.
Technically, out of the box, it was the HP 9830. Yes, it wasn't a handheld
calculator, and it didn't run on batteries(it was big and quite heavy and required
standard 115V AC power), but it had an alpha-numeric display(and optionally a printer)
that could be programmatically written to, and the machine could accept alpha-numeric
input and process it as such.
The HP 9820 had an alphanumeric display, and could be programmed to generate alphanumeric
prompts on the display, but I don't believe (off the top of my head, I could be wrong)
it had the capability to accept and process alpha-numerics out of the box.
The HP 9820 and 9830 were introduced in June of 1972. Seven years before the HP-41.
-Rick
--
Rick Bensene
The Old Calculator Museum
https://oldcalculatormuseum.com
Beavercreek, OR USA
4:07 a.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 1:40 AM Rick Bensene via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Mike Katz wrote:
Could it? The 9830 could certainly use fixed text strings to prompt
for input and label output but I thought that to manipulate text in
memory you needed the 'String Variables' add-on ROM module.
I'm sorry but you are misinformed about the
HP-41C Calculator.
The HP-41 was the first calculator that had
Alpha-Numerics.
That is not true.
Technically, out of the box, it was the HP 9830. Yes, it wasn't a handheld
calculator, and it didn't run on batteries(it was big and quite heavy and required
standard 115V AC power), but it had an alpha-numeric display(and optionally a printer)
that could be programmatically written to, and the machine could accept alpha-numeric
input and process it as such.
The HP 9820 had an alphanumeric display, and could be programmed to generate alphanumeric
prompts on the display, but I don't believe (off the top of my head, I could be wrong)
it had the capability to accept and process alpha-numerics out of the box.
All the 98x0 machines, even the 9810, could be interfaced to a paper
tape punch and reader and could read/punch the tape one byte at a time
So : Type some text on a Model 33ASR and produce a paper tape of it.
Read that tape one character at a time into a 98x0, manipulate the
data, and punch the output
Feed the resulting paper tape back into the Model 33ASR and print it.
Is that handlng text on a calculator?
-tony
12:30 a.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
Carey S. writes:
If it only manipulates numeric data, it is a
calculator. It must be able to search,
rearrange look up, compare, and display characters. I would have thought that to be
obvious. <snip> ...if it cannot give a text description of the answer, it is a
calculator.
Also something about arbitrary branches to any
location (ok, any executable location if
something has separate code and data memory).
So, are the HP 9820, HP 9830, Tektronix 31, Tektronix 4051, and the Texas Instruments
SR-60 calculators or computers?
All of them were at least initially marketed as calculators(except perhaps the 4051, but
it could definitely serve as a calculator, though massive overkill).
This was because if someone submitted a capital equipment request for a
"computer", bean counters would immediately reject it, while calculators would
sail right through.
Why?
Because computers were big complicated machines that required expensive, brainy people to
support, and they needed all kinds of "extras" like special power, air
conditioning, storage systems, printers, terminals, maintenance contracts, installation
fees, and other stuff that cost even more money. At least, that was the mentality, be it
right or wrong. It has been historically documented as such in numerous books written
about that period in time.
Calculators... well, you just took 'em out of the box, set them on the desk, plugged
them in and off you go. Didn’t really matter if it was a four-banger, or something like
an HP 9830(if all you wanted to do was calculate with it).
With machines like this, engineers and scientists could get themselves a
"computer" without the fuss of having to say it was a computer on their
equipment request.
All of the above devices could be programmed to manipulate and display and/or print
alpha-numeric and special characters, They could be programmed to search, compare, find,
re-arrange, sort, combine, and manipulate numerical and non-numerical data.
They all also had the ability to branch to an arbitrary location within a program, though
off the top of my head, I think that all of the machines except the 4051(EXEC) (and maybe
the HP 9830, I can't remember off the top of my head - it may have required a special
ROM module to be added in order to do that) didn't have the ability to branch to
arbitrary data in memory and execute it.
All of the named machines certainly could qualify as a computer, right?
At the same time, each of them could have a mathematical expression (some even with
variables) entered as it would be written on paper, without any programming, and they
would display/print the numeric result after pressing a single key to terminate the entry.
These expressions could include functions such as logarithms, trig, roots, exponentials,
etc., just like a calculator.
Perhaps that really does make them calculators?
Why did Digital Equipment Corporation brand their computers as "PDP"? It was an
acronym for "Programmed Data Processor". A "PDP" isn't a computer
for all bean counters might know. The point of this designation (which was only the PDP
part, not its expansion) was to allow capital requests to get through the approval process
without the fussy "computer" word in the request.
You'd just write down "PDP 11/70" on the request. As long as the money was
in your budget, the worst that might happen is someone from finance may ring you up and
ask you "What's a PDP 11/70?", and you could say, "Oh, it's a
really fancy calculator" (not a lie), and they'd go away happy, and your request
would be granted, even if it amounted to tens of thousands (or more) dollars.
Weeks later, you'd have an really powerful Programmed Data Processor show up at the
loading dock, no one really the wiser.
This is probably exaggerating the reality a bit, but the true point of the PDP designation
was to make it easier for engineers, scientists, and anyone else that needed a real
computer but had a bureaucracy to go through before they could get one.
Perhaps the distinction noted isn't quite as clear cut as indicated.
-Rick
PS: Carey, I am working on a response to your message from yesterday, it's just taking
a while, hopefully it'll arrive to you later today or tomorrow sometime.
--
Rick Bensene
The Old Calculator Museum
https://oldcalculatormuseum.com
12:48 a.m.
New subject: Black Apple (Was: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
On Mon, 27 May 2024, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote:
This was because if someone submitted a capital
equipment request for a
"computer", bean counters would immediately reject it, while calculators
would sail right through.
Why?
Does anybody here have personal experience with the "Black Apple"?
I don't but read about it with interest at the time.
Apple cut a deal to market some machines through Bell and Howell ("Hell
and bowel"?)
The machine was an ordinary Apple, with a black case, non-removable power
cord, and latches, instead of velcro, for the lid, all to reduce pilferage
of parts.
Educators were having serious difficulty getting purchase requests for
computers through school district purchasing departments. However, when
the purchase request said "Bell And Howell equipment", it would sail right
through!
Around the same time, Apple wanted to "give" a machine to each and every
school and take a tax deduction. But, the IRS reasoned that if they let
Apple do it, then every other computer company would also.
It fell apart in the negotiations about the size of the tax deduction;
Apple wanted to deduct retail, or at least dealer price; the IRS said that
they could only deduct the price of the components. (not teven the labor
that Apple paid for assembly)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
Because computers were big complicated machines
that required expensive,
brainy people to support, and they needed all kinds of
"extras" like
special power, air conditioning, storage systems, printers, terminals,
maintenance contracts, installation fees, and other stuff that cost even
more money. At least, that was the mentality, be it right or wrong.
It has been historically documented as such in numerous books written
about that period in time. 
26 May
26 May
8:30 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
You rap the drive to get it unstuck, but if you rap it
too hard
the machine would reset.
I think I had a co-worker like that once.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser(a)floodgap.com
-- Males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes. -- Newt Gingrich
11:05 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
> You rap the drive to get it unstuck, but if you
rap it too hard
> the machine would reset.
On Sun, 26 May 2024, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk wrote:
I think I had a co-worker like that once.
The problem with trying to implement percussive maintenance with cow-
orkers, is that the force needed to unstick them is likely to be more
than that which would reboot.
10:49 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
> "Real OS"? While I don't agree with
your specific examples of
> inadequacies, I will readily concede that nothing so far is ready for the
> title.
On Sun, 26 May 2024, ben via cctalk wrote:
CP/M was the cats meyow in the 1970's,but there
was other systems out like
flex for the 6800, or later OS/9 for the 6809. Don't they get a chance too
for real OS.
OS/9 was kinda cool, but my Cocos were kinda inadequate hardware to make
full use of it.
Randy Cook tried to make a "real OS" for the TRS80. But, he never
FINISHED [nor documented] TRSDOS, nor VTOS. When LSI commissioned LDOS,
as the finishing of TRSDOS/VTOS, they stripped out a lot of the "real OS"
features that Randy Cook had intended, but never finished implementing.
But, when Radio-shack licensed LDOS, to be TRSDOS 6.0, Randy Cook finally
started to receive royalties.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
27 May
27 May
12:15 a.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
OS/9 was an incredible operating system for an 8 bit machine. Level 1
was a bit limited. But level II, which could address a megabyte of
memory or more, supported multiple tasks, users and intelligent
peripherals. It supported applications in ROM and RAM and made full use
of all of the advanced capabilities of the 6809 CPU.
It was a little bit of a memory hog because code written for it had to
be written as position independent code. On the 6809 this could take up
more RAM because some of the relative instructions required 16 bits or
more to decode.
On 5/26/2024 5:49 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> "Real
OS"? While I don't agree with your specific examples of
> inadequacies, I will readily concede that nothing so far is ready
> for the title.
On Sun, 26 May 2024, ben via cctalk wrote:
CP/M was the cats meyow in the 1970's,but
there was other systems out
like
flex for the 6800, or later OS/9 for the 6809. Don't they get a
chance too for real OS.
OS/9 was kinda cool, but my Cocos were kinda inadequate hardware to
make full use of it.
Randy Cook tried to make a "real OS" for the TRS80. But, he never
FINISHED [nor documented] TRSDOS, nor VTOS. When LSI commissioned
LDOS, as the finishing of TRSDOS/VTOS, they stripped out a lot of the
"real OS" features that Randy Cook had intended, but never finished
implementing.
But, when Radio-shack licensed LDOS, to be TRSDOS 6.0, Randy Cook
finally started to receive royalties.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com 
28 May
28 May
1:31 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
On 5/26/2024 2:11 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
how many people here still use the 16Kb (favorite machine)
with tape IO?
I can, and have recently. TRS-80 Model I. In order to do
some stuff with Tiny Pascal. But not so much any more as
the machine also has 48K available if I hook up the EI and
it has floppies, hard disks and ethernet (with TCP/IP available)
when I need it.
bill
1:23 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
On 5/26/2024 2:50 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:
I think the most important thing for a Personal Computer,
is the average Joe, can afford and use it. The second thing is
to have ample memory and IO to run useful programs. The basic Apple
I,II does not count as many others as it had BASIC in ROM and tape IO.
Why not? I have seen some very serious research done on Apple][
systems at the University where I worked. I even have two of
them that I saved from the dumpster.
The third thing is a real OS. Nobody has one, as a
personal computer.
CP/M and MSDOS does not handle IRQ's. Unix for the PDP-11 is real
operating system but not personal as it requires a admin,and a swapping
media.
Tandy Color Computer running OS/9. I have had as many as 5
simultaneous users on one. Plus background tasks like a web
server. Easily affordable since its inception. Can run very
serious programs written in languages other than BASIC, plus
it had Basic09 which was a much more serious language than the
run-of-the-mill BASIC.
bill
1:38 p.m.
New subject: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]
On May 28, 2024, at 9:23 AM, Bill Gunshannon via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 5/26/2024 2:50 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:
That reminds me of an even more primitive personal computer, a 4004 based one designed and
built from scratch by a college classmate of mine in 1974. It was a wire wrap board, with
perhaps 100 chips on it (about the size of the S-100 motherboard I built from a kit some
years later). When it was just about complete he took it with him on his summer intern
job at one of the US national labs, where apparently they liked it enough that they asked
him to built a couple of copies for them to use.
He got honors in independent study for his work.
paul
I think the most important thing for a Personal
Computer,
is the average Joe, can afford and use it. The second thing is
to have ample memory and IO to run useful programs. The basic Apple I,II does not count
as many others as it had BASIC in ROM and tape IO.
Why not? I have seen some very serious research done on Apple][
systems at the University where I worked. I even have two of
them that I saved from the dumpster.
26 May
26 May
3:14 a.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 1:33 PM Rick Bensene via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
<lots of fantastic information snipped>
I'm just adding some thoughts to the discussion.
Rick Bensene
The Old Calculator Museum
https://oldcalculatormuseum.com
Rick,
I always appreciate your incredibly informative contributions.
Sellam
25 May
25 May
11:20 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
You see, we are back to my original comment. The definition of Personal
Computer is quite fluid. Does it have to be called a Personal Computer
in advertising literature or does any computer that can be used by a
single person, in any environment, constitute a personal computer.
If i am writing the definition than my original comment that the
Antikythera Mechanism is the first computing device designed to be used
by a single person..
To someone else the Altiar is the first personal computer. And to yet,
someone else an early PDP or HP computer might be the first personal
computer.
There are many mechanical and later analog computing devices in use long
before the modern digital computer. What about the Hollerith Machine
used to count the census from the 1890's to the 1950's. It was a one
person calculating machine but since it was used for commercial purposes
does that make it a personal computer. When IBM initially released the
first PC it was intended not for home use but for business use (for
$10,000 1980's dollars). The Northstar Horizon was also marketed as a
business computer but used by home S-100 hobbyists.
The point, as I stated earlier, is that for every different definition
we will find a different result.
I guess this means that the definition of personal computer is personal😛
This is written with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.
On 5/25/2024 1:27 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
On 5/25/24 13:05, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
When announced and sold new, were the SIMON, LINC
and G-15 sold and
described as, in the exact words, "personal computer"? Did the guy
with multiple supercomputers in his basement buy them NEW, to use
them for their designed purpose? If not they are just memorabilia,
like a victrola.
The Bendix G-15 came out in 1956! It cost about $60,000 in 1956
Dollars. The first LINC machines were built at an MIT summer school
by grad students who would then take them back to their home
institutions and use then in biomedical research labs. The LINCs in
this case cost about $50K, and were built starting in 1961-62. The
term "personal computer" was not coined until a LONG time after.
Jon
26 May
26 May
3:21 a.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 5:16 PM Mike Katz via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
You see, we are back to my original comment. The
definition of Personal
Computer is quite fluid. Does it have to be called a Personal Computer
in advertising literature or does any computer that can be used by a
single person, in any environment, constitute a personal computer.
Perhaps in the future people will not so much be fixated on the terms we
use and debate today and will instead mark progress in computing by some
other more sociologically-centered metric, like adoption of computers at
home. That seemed to really take off around 1975, with the public release
of the Altair 8800.
Time will tell.
Sellam
7:37 a.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Katz via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2024 12:21 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Cc: Mike Katz <bitwiz(a)12bitsbest.com>
Subject: [cctalk] Re: First Personal Computer
You see, we are back to my original comment. The definition of Personal
Computer is quite fluid. Does it have to be called a Personal Computer in
advertising literature or does any computer that can be used by a single person,
in any environment, constitute a personal computer.
Surely when we say "Personal Computer" we mean "Turing Complete Digital
Personal Computer" it is just a tad long winded to say so.....
... and if we simply say "digital" which excludes many devices that still
includes the Abacus ....
Dave
3:49 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On Sun, May 26, 2024, 12:37 AM Dave Wade G4UGM via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
The abacus is no more a computer than a ruler, or maybe a slide rule.
Sellam
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Katz via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2024 12:21 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Cc: Mike Katz <bitwiz(a)12bitsbest.com>
Subject: [cctalk] Re: First Personal Computer
You see, we are back to my original comment. The definition of Personal
Computer is quite fluid. Does it have to be called a Personal Computer
in
advertising literature or does any computer that
can be used by a single
person,
in any environment, constitute a personal
computer.
Surely when we say "Personal Computer" we mean "Turing Complete Digital
Personal Computer" it is just a tad long winded to say so.....
... and if we simply say "digital" which excludes many devices that still
includes the Abacus ....
Dave
27 May
27 May
12:30 a.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
I'm not claiming it was the first personal computer but is was my first personal
computer. It was within a year or two of just about any other first personal computer.
It was a Poly88 with ROM based tiny basic. I had a keyboard, I think I got from Mike
Quin's as well as a Singer typing terminal that I converted into a serial printer.
I used a transformer powered TV as a monitor and used a cassette recorder as mass
storage.
It was more personal than other machine as it was my personal creation after several
modifications to enhance it. I learned a lot about computers and how they worked from that
machine.
Dwight
1:10 a.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On 5/26/24 17:30, dwight via cctalk wrote:
I'm not claiming it was the first personal
computer but is was my first personal computer. It was within a year or two of just about
any other first personal computer.
It was a Poly88 with ROM based tiny basic. I had a keyboard, I think I got from Mike
Quin's as well as a Singer typing terminal that I converted into a serial printer.
I used a transformer powered TV as a monitor and used a cassette recorder as mass
storage.
It was more personal than other machine as it was my personal creation after several
modifications to enhance it. I learned a lot about computers and how they worked from that
machine.
I built a TVT and drove a hot-chassis all-tube Zenith portable TV. A
little tricky when it came to getting the AC plugs the right way. Back
then, US AC plugs were not polarized.
1:15 a.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On Sun, 26 May 2024, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 5/26/24 17:30, dwight via cctalk wrote:
. . . and, even when they were, at least half of the polarized outlets
were wired backwards
I'm not claiming it was the first personal
computer but is was my first personal computer. It was within a year or two of just about
any other first personal computer.
It was a Poly88 with ROM based tiny basic. I had a keyboard, I think I got from Mike
Quin's as well as a Singer typing terminal that I converted into a serial printer.
I used a transformer powered TV as a monitor and used a cassette recorder as mass
storage.
It was more personal than other machine as it was my personal creation after several
modifications to enhance it. I learned a lot about computers and how they worked from that
machine.
I built a TVT and drove a hot-chassis all-tube Zenith portable TV. A
little tricky when it came to getting the AC plugs the right way. Back
then, US AC plugs were not polarized.
25 May
25 May
4:09 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On 5/25/24 08:14, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
Yes, the Bendix G-15 was said to be the first personal
computer. It was
as big as a refrigerator, and weighed a LOT more, and drew much more
power. (300 vacuum tubes, 3000 Germanium diodes, drum memory.) but,
one guy could program it and run it.
The LINC comes in a close second.
Offhand, if I were King of the World, I'd immediately eliminate from
competition those computers that cannot be run from a US 120 volt 15 amp
wall receptacle. The rationale being that anything that requires
special power wiring cannot be "personal"
So, for example, the PB-250 qualifies; the IBM 1130 does not. The
Honeywell H316 "Kitchen computer" probably does, in the sense of intent,
but it was never produced for mass consumption.
I recall a short-lived 60's attempt at a personal data retrieval device
(cassette tape storage)--I don't think it had any computational
capabilities, so probably not a computer per se. Anyone remember the name?
--Chuck
8:41 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On Sat, 25 May 2024, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 5/25/24 08:14, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
Offhand, if I were King of the World, I'd immediately eliminate from
competition those computers that cannot be run from a US 120 volt 15 amp
wall receptacle. The rationale being that anything that requires
special power wiring cannot be "personal"
. . . or 100V or 220V in locations where those are the standard for
household residential wiring.
Woulld not want to automatically exclude UK machines, such as the Sinclair
doorstop wedge.
9:57 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On 5/25/24 13:41, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2024, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
. . . or 100V or 220V in locations where those are the
standard for
household residential wiring.
Woulld not want to automatically exclude UK machines, such as the
Sinclair doorstop wedge.
Okay, I'll refine it for the international crowd. Anything that
requires over 1800 VA to run isn't a "personal computer" That's about
8
amps for the 220 volt world.
--Chuck
11:58 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
Now that is an interesting refinement. Limiting to 1800 VA, most likely
eliminates almost anything vacuum tube based.
My 1974 PDP-8/E computer alone (not counting external storage devices)
was rated at 115V @ 10A. I don't know what the power factor of it is
but that is 1150 Watts. Does that count? Technically I don't need any
peripherals to program it or get the program results. I just use the
front panel.
Does that 1800VA include any necessary peripherals such as terminals,
CRT's, disk drives, tape drives, etc?
See, even that definition is really non-specific and open to interpretation.
Should we add a limitation on volume occupied as well? This would
eliminate many rack or multiple rack computers.
What about memory type? Before semiconductor RAM and CORE there was
serial, drum, tape and mechanical memory systems
Does it have to be a digital computer. There we many table top analog
computers in the 50's and 60's. Even Heathkit made some.
Does the output need to be text (What about an analog computer with a
digital nixie tube display)???
Everyone has their own definition of what a Personal Computer is to
them. It's all subjective.
How much computing power and electricity are we using trying to identify
something whose mere definition is so subject to interpretation?
On 5/25/2024 4:57 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 5/25/24 13:41, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2024, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
wrote:
. . . or 100V or 220V in locations where those are the standard for
household residential wiring.
Woulld not want to automatically exclude UK machines, such as the
Sinclair doorstop wedge.
Okay, I'll refine it for the international crowd.
Anything that
requires over 1800 VA to run isn't a "personal computer" That's about
8
amps for the 220 volt world.
--Chuck
26 May
26 May
6:53 a.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On 2024-05-25 3:57 p.m., Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 5/25/24 13:41, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
That means all the NEW gaming PC's have been deleted from this
discussion, Good job. :)
On Sat, 25 May 2024, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
wrote:
. . . or 100V or 220V in locations where those
are the standard for
household residential wiring.
Woulld not want to automatically exclude UK machines, such as the
Sinclair doorstop wedge.
Okay, I'll refine it for the international crowd. Anything that
requires over 1800 VA to run isn't a "personal computer" That's about
8
amps for the 220 volt world.
--Chuck
27 May
27 May
12:27 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On Sat, 25 May 2024, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Okay, I'll refine it for the international crowd.
Anything that
requires over 1800 VA to run isn't a "personal computer" That's about
8
amps for the 220 volt world.
Why the limit of 8 amps?
The standard fusing for a single-phase outlet here is 16 amps (230V/16A),
sometimes 10A. So yes, we can run 3,6kW devices from a single outlet (i.e.
water boilers, ovens, cloth dryers ...)
Christian
12:37 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
16amps where?
Don Resor
Sent from someone's iPhone
On May 27, 2024, at 5:27 AM, Christian Corti via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2024, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Okay, I'll refine it for the international
crowd. Anything that
requires over 1800 VA to run isn't a "personal computer" That's about
8
amps for the 220 volt world.
Why the limit of 8 amps?
The standard fusing for a single-phase outlet here is 16 amps (230V/16A), sometimes 10A.
So yes, we can run 3,6kW devices from a single outlet (i.e. water boilers, ovens, cloth
dryers ...)
Christian
3:53 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
16amps where?
In Europe? At least in Germany 16 amps is standard. The Schuko outlets and
plugs are rated for this current.
As an example, the fuse box in my appartment is splitting up the three
input phases (63A each) from the main distribution panel to 3x 3
circuits/16A each.
Christian
12:23 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On Sat, 25 May 2024, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Offhand, if I were King of the World, I'd
immediately eliminate from
competition those computers that cannot be run from a US 120 volt 15 amp
wall receptacle. The rationale being that anything that requires
special power wiring cannot be "personal"
I I were King of the World, I'd immediately ban everything non-standard
like 110/120V, 208V two-phase and 60Hz ish as well as everything
non-metric/SI based ;-)))))
So, for example, the PB-250 qualifies; the IBM 1130
does not. The
The IBM 1130 *does* run on a simple wall power outlet if you don't have
the 1133 I/O multiplexer.
Christian
1:07 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On 2024-05-27 6:23 a.m., Christian Corti via cctalk wrote:
I/O motors can be adapted I suspect for phase and power.
Remember not needing a raised floor and AC was big selling point
of the IBM 1130 in the 1960's.
Four-Phase Systems, had a impressive system in the 1970's.
One 24 bit box with up to 32 terminals in 1974.
The IBM 1130 was retired around then,and it was good time for
24 bit computers.
On Sat, 25 May 2024, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I would ban the eruo and the metric system.
Bring back British rule. Long live the KING.
Offhand, if I were King of the World, I'd
immediately eliminate from
competition those computers that cannot be run from a US 120 volt 15 amp
wall receptacle. The rationale being that anything that requires
special power wiring cannot be "personal"
I I were King of the World, I'd immediately ban everything non-standard
like 110/120V, 208V two-phase and 60Hz ish as well as everything
non-metric/SI based ;-))))) So, for
example, the PB-250 qualifies; the IBM 1130 does not. The
The IBM 1130 *does* run on a simple wall power outlet if you don't have
the 1133 I/O multiplexer.
Christian
28 May
28 May
1:02 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On 5/25/2024 12:09 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 5/25/24 08:14, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
None of the houses I have lived in were limited to 120V 15A. Even my
very first apartment 50 years ago (over some guys garage) had 120V 30A
(Intended for an A/C Unit but you could plug anything in it you wanted.)
Every house I have owned had 230V available. I have several large power
outlets in my current home. Range, clothes dryer, water heater, hot
tub. And I have 220V 50A in the garage feeding my welder, electric
heater and a 30A outlet for my camper.
In the past I have had PDP-11's (with RL and RA disks), VAX, AT&T 3b's,
an Apollo (great space heater on cold winter days) and piles of systems
people are more likely to accept as "Personal".
bill
Yes, the Bendix G-15 was said to be the first
personal computer. It was
as big as a refrigerator, and weighed a LOT more, and drew much more
power. (300 vacuum tubes, 3000 Germanium diodes, drum memory.) but,
one guy could program it and run it.
The LINC comes in a close second.
Offhand, if I were King of the World, I'd immediately eliminate from
competition those computers that cannot be run from a US 120 volt 15 amp
wall receptacle. The rationale being that anything that requires
special power wiring cannot be "personal"
2:43 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
so if ONE person maybe living in a loft formerly industrial space has water cooling, and
200 amp 3 phase in their house, that automatically makes EVERY computer using that power
personal computer eligible?
--First Appartment I lived in had gas refrigerator/stove AND still had some fixtures for
gas lighting. washer/dryer/furnace/hot water were all shared in basement, real screw in
fuses (not safety) so MAYBE had 220 if you used extension cords to two rooms, probably 10
amps.
--townhouse my parents moved to had 220 at the circuit box, but intended for gas
appliances and you either bought central AC before construction completed, or tough luck,
so no 220 outlets.
--my first two personal apartments again no 220, probably 15 A
--my condo had hi amp 110 for the living room sleeve A/C
--rental house when married back to older, no 220
--current house has 220 hard wired for hot water, sauna, & central A/C, had 220 outlet
(or hard wired?) for electric stove in the kitchen (now ex-wife swapped out for gas as
first priority, so wires capped and hidden under floor), so only outlet for 220 is in
laundry room for electric dryer, damp and not a good place to run a computer..
<pre>--Carey</pre>
On 05/28/2024 8:02 AM CDT Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 5/25/2024 12:09 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> On 5/25/24 08:14, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
>
...
Offhand, if I were King of the World, I'd immediately eliminate from
competition those computers that cannot be run from a US 120 volt 15 amp
wall receptacle. The rationale being that anything that requires
special power wiring cannot be "personal"
None of the houses I have lived in were limited to 120V 15A. Even my
very first apartment 50 years ago (over some guys garage) had 120V 30A
(Intended for an A/C Unit but you could plug anything in it you wanted.)
Every house I have owned had 230V available. I have several large power
outlets in my current home. Range, clothes dryer, water heater, hot
tub. And I have 220V 50A in the garage feeding my welder, electric
heater and a 30A outlet for my camper.
In the past I have had PDP-11's (with RL and RA disks), VAX, AT&T 3b's,
an Apollo (great space heater on cold winter days) and piles of systems
people are more likely to accept as "Personal".
bill
4:56 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On 2024-05-28 8:43 a.m., CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
so if ONE person maybe living in a loft formerly
industrial space has water cooling, and 200 amp 3 phase in their house, that automatically
makes EVERY computer using that power personal computer eligible?
--First Appartment I lived in had gas refrigerator/stove AND still had some fixtures for
gas lighting. washer/dryer/furnace/hot water were all shared in basement, real screw in
fuses (not safety) so MAYBE had 220 if you used extension cords to two rooms, probably 10
amps.
--townhouse my parents moved to had 220 at the circuit box, but intended for gas
appliances and you either bought central AC before construction completed, or tough luck,
so no 220 outlets.
--my first two personal apartments again no 220, probably 15 A
Still wanting a GAS Computer? :)
4:58 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 5:56 PM ben via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I once repaired a gas radio (dating from the 1930s). No I am not joking.
-tony
--First
Appartment I lived in had gas refrigerator/stove AND still had some fixtures for gas
lighting. washer/dryer/furnace/hot water were all shared in basement, real screw in fuses
(not safety) so MAYBE had 220 if you used extension cords to two rooms, probably 10 amps.
--townhouse my parents moved to had 220 at the circuit box, but intended for gas
appliances and you either bought central AC before construction completed, or tough luck,
so no 220 outlets.
--my first two personal apartments again no 220, probably 15 A
Still wanting a GAS Computer? :)
5:05 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On 2024-05-28 10:58 a.m., Tony Duell wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 5:56 PM ben via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I once repaired a gas radio (dating from the 1930s). No I am not joking.
-tony
Just what is a gas radio?
--First
Appartment I lived in had gas refrigerator/stove AND still had some fixtures for gas
lighting. washer/dryer/furnace/hot water were all shared in basement, real screw in fuses
(not safety) so MAYBE had 220 if you used extension cords to two rooms, probably 10 amps.
--townhouse my parents moved to had 220 at the circuit box, but intended for gas
appliances and you either bought central AC before construction completed, or tough luck,
so no 220 outlets.
--my first two personal apartments again no 220, probably 15 A
Still wanting a GAS Computer? :)
5:17 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 6:06 PM ben <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
Just what is a gas radio?
A radio that runs off gas rather than plugging into the electricity mains.
Let me explain. The main use for either gas or electriciy in UK homes
until the mid 1920s was heating (including cooking) and light. Both
energy sources could easily be used for that. But then a large number
of electric appliances using motors started to appear, along with
other things, like radios that ran off the electricity mains (rather
than a dry battery for the HT supply (B+) and a single-cell lead acid
accumulator for the valve filaments).
The gas supply companies were worried they would lose business as a
result and designed gas powered version of all the mains electrical
devices. One classis was the table fan which had a small Stirling-type
hot air engine to turn the blades. There was of course a little gas
burner to run the engine. The only problem was the heat of the flame
rather negated the cooling effect of the fan.
Anyway, the gas radio. This was a wooden floor-standing console
cabinet looking like most other radios of the time. The bit I
repaired (for a museum, where I understood it would be run off a
normal electrical power supply for obvious reasons) was the radio
which was a normal-for-the time 3 or 4 valve (tube) set. There was a
speaker in the cabinet too. At the bottom was the power supply. This
consisted of a gas burner with a thermopile (array of thermocouple
junctions) on top to provide the valve filament and HT voltages.
There was no flue. The combustion products were simply vented into the
room, And yes the gas burner was inside the wooden console cabinet, so
it was something of a fire risk to be polite about it.
AFAIK they were never sold to the public, thankfully.
-tony
5:45 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
In line with my memories completely, Tony, although I was just a wee
sapling back then.
It is also where the terms 'A', 'B' and 'C' supplies come from,
since
there were three batteries per radio, grid bias, HT, and heaters. The
grid bias battery lasted a long time since there was very little current
drawn.
And I have fond memories of learning to play the piano by gaslight,
since the elderly spinster piano teacher and her mother refused to let
the house be connected to the electric mains as they were afraid of it!
Then of course there was the Ronan Point gas explosion which blew out a
whole floor of a high-rise building in London that might have changed
people's minds!
73 de Nigel ve3id
On 2024-05-28 13:17, Tony Duell via cctalk wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 6:06 PM
ben<bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
--
Nigel Johnson, MSc., MIEEE, MCSE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU
Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept!
Skype: TILBURY2591
Just what is a gas radio?
A radio that runs off gas rather than plugging into the electricity mains.
Let me explain. The main use for either gas or electriciy in UK homes
until the mid 1920s was heating (including cooking) and light. Both
energy sources could easily be used for that. But then a large number
of electric appliances using motors started to appear, along with
other things, like radios that ran off the electricity mains (rather
than a dry battery for the HT supply (B+) and a single-cell lead acid
accumulator for the valve filaments).
The gas supply companies were worried they would lose business as a
result and designed gas powered version of all the mains electrical
devices. One classis was the table fan which had a small Stirling-type
hot air engine to turn the blades. There was of course a little gas
burner to run the engine. The only problem was the heat of the flame
rather negated the cooling effect of the fan.
Anyway, the gas radio. This was a wooden floor-standing console
cabinet looking like most other radios of the time. The bit I
repaired (for a museum, where I understood it would be run off a
normal electrical power supply for obvious reasons) was the radio
which was a normal-for-the time 3 or 4 valve (tube) set. There was a
speaker in the cabinet too. At the bottom was the power supply. This
consisted of a gas burner with a thermopile (array of thermocouple
junctions) on top to provide the valve filament and HT voltages.
There was no flue. The combustion products were simply vented into the
room, And yes the gas burner was inside the wooden console cabinet, so
it was something of a fire risk to be polite about it.
AFAIK they were never sold to the public, thankfully.
-tony
6:23 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
Could this be the answer to the question we have been studying?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cleaning-crew-discovers-one-world…
cheers,
Nigel
On 2024-05-28 13:45, Nigel Johnson Ham wrote:
In line with my memories completely, Tony, although I was just a wee
sapling back then.
It is also where the terms 'A', 'B' and 'C' supplies come from,
since
there were three batteries per radio, grid bias, HT, and heaters. The
grid bias battery lasted a long time since there was very little
current drawn.
And I have fond memories of learning to play the piano by gaslight,
since the elderly spinster piano teacher and her mother refused to let
the house be connected to the electric mains as they were afraid of it!
Then of course there was the Ronan Point gas explosion which blew out
a whole floor of a high-rise building in London that might have
changed people's minds!
73 de Nigel ve3id
On 2024-05-28 13:17, Tony Duell via cctalk wrote:
--
Nigel Johnson, MSc., MIEEE, MCSE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU
Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept!
Skype: TILBURY2591
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 6:06 PM
ben<bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
--
Nigel Johnson, MSc., MIEEE, MCSE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU
Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept!
Skype: TILBURY2591
Just what is a gas radio?
A radio that runs off gas rather than plugging into the electricity mains.
Let me explain. The main use for either gas or electriciy in UK homes
until the mid 1920s was heating (including cooking) and light. Both
energy sources could easily be used for that. But then a large number
of electric appliances using motors started to appear, along with
other things, like radios that ran off the electricity mains (rather
than a dry battery for the HT supply (B+) and a single-cell lead acid
accumulator for the valve filaments).
The gas supply companies were worried they would lose business as a
result and designed gas powered version of all the mains electrical
devices. One classis was the table fan which had a small Stirling-type
hot air engine to turn the blades. There was of course a little gas
burner to run the engine. The only problem was the heat of the flame
rather negated the cooling effect of the fan.
Anyway, the gas radio. This was a wooden floor-standing console
cabinet looking like most other radios of the time. The bit I
repaired (for a museum, where I understood it would be run off a
normal electrical power supply for obvious reasons) was the radio
which was a normal-for-the time 3 or 4 valve (tube) set. There was a
speaker in the cabinet too. At the bottom was the power supply. This
consisted of a gas burner with a thermopile (array of thermocouple
junctions) on top to provide the valve filament and HT voltages.
There was no flue. The combustion products were simply vented into the
room, And yes the gas burner was inside the wooden console cabinet, so
it was something of a fire risk to be polite about it.
AFAIK they were never sold to the public, thankfully.
-tony
30 May
30 May
6:05 a.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
Only because I thought it would be funny to hear ChatGPT's wrong answer.
Here is ChatGPT's answer on the first personal computer.
ME> What was the first personal computer?
ChatGPT> The first personal computer is a bit of a debated topic, but one
of the earliest and most influential examples is the Altair 8800, released
in 1975. It was developed by a company called MITS (Micro Instrumentation
and Telemetry Systems). The Altair 8800 was a build-it-yourself kit based
on the Intel 8080 microprocessor, and it featured toggle switches and LED
lights for input and output. This computer is often credited with sparking
the microcomputer revolution and inspiring a generation of computer
enthusiasts, including a young Bill Gates and Paul Allen, who famously
developed a version of the BASIC programming language for the Altair.
(Pouring gas on the fire, but thought it was funny.)
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 1:23 PM Nigel Johnson Ham via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Could this be the answer to the question we have been
studying?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cleaning-crew-discovers-one-world…
cheers,
Nigel
On 2024-05-28 13:45, Nigel Johnson Ham wrote:
--
Nigel Johnson, MSc., MIEEE, MCSE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU
Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept!
Skype: TILBURY2591
In line with my memories completely, Tony, although I was just a wee
sapling back then.
It is also where the terms 'A', 'B' and 'C' supplies come from,
since
there were three batteries per radio, grid bias, HT, and heaters. The
grid bias battery lasted a long time since there was very little
current drawn.
And I have fond memories of learning to play the piano by gaslight,
since the elderly spinster piano teacher and her mother refused to let
the house be connected to the electric mains as they were afraid of it!
Then of course there was the Ronan Point gas explosion which blew out
a whole floor of a high-rise building in London that might have
changed people's minds!
73 de Nigel ve3id
On 2024-05-28 13:17, Tony Duell via cctalk wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 6:06 PM ben<bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> Just what is a gas radio?
> A radio that runs off gas rather than plugging into the electricity
mains.
Let me explain. The main use for either gas or electriciy in UK homes
until the mid 1920s was heating (including cooking) and light. Both
energy sources could easily be used for that. But then a large number
of electric appliances using motors started to appear, along with
other things, like radios that ran off the electricity mains (rather
than a dry battery for the HT supply (B+) and a single-cell lead acid
accumulator for the valve filaments).
The gas supply companies were worried they would lose business as a
result and designed gas powered version of all the mains electrical
devices. One classis was the table fan which had a small Stirling-type
hot air engine to turn the blades. There was of course a little gas
burner to run the engine. The only problem was the heat of the flame
rather negated the cooling effect of the fan.
Anyway, the gas radio. This was a wooden floor-standing console
cabinet looking like most other radios of the time. The bit I
repaired (for a museum, where I understood it would be run off a
normal electrical power supply for obvious reasons) was the radio
which was a normal-for-the time 3 or 4 valve (tube) set. There was a
speaker in the cabinet too. At the bottom was the power supply. This
consisted of a gas burner with a thermopile (array of thermocouple
junctions) on top to provide the valve filament and HT voltages.
There was no flue. The combustion products were simply vented into the
room, And yes the gas burner was inside the wooden console cabinet, so
it was something of a fire risk to be polite about it.
AFAIK they were never sold to the public, thankfully.
-tony
--
Nigel Johnson, MSc., MIEEE, MCSE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU
Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept!
Skype: TILBURY2591
8:09 a.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
I’m surprised you didn’t quiz ChatGPT until it refused to answer and/or crashed.
I understand “it” can use very “colorful” language when provoked and poked. ;)
Don Resor
Sent from someone's iPhone
On May 29, 2024, at 11:06 PM, John Herron via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Only because I thought it would be funny to hear ChatGPT's wrong answer.
Here is ChatGPT's answer on the first personal computer.
ME> What was the first personal computer?
ChatGPT> The first personal computer is a bit of a debated topic, but one
of the earliest and most influential examples is the Altair 8800, released
in 1975. It was developed by a company called MITS (Micro Instrumentation
and Telemetry Systems). The Altair 8800 was a build-it-yourself kit based
on the Intel 8080 microprocessor, and it featured toggle switches and LED
lights for input and output. This computer is often credited with sparking
the microcomputer revolution and inspiring a generation of computer
enthusiasts, including a young Bill Gates and Paul Allen, who famously
developed a version of the BASIC programming language for the Altair.
(Pouring gas on the fire, but thought it was funny.)
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 1:23 PM Nigel Johnson Ham
via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Could this be the answer to the question we have been studying?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cleaning-crew-discovers-one-world…
cheers,
Nigel
--
Nigel Johnson, MSc., MIEEE, MCSE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU
Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept!
Skype: TILBURY2591
On 2024-05-28 13:45, Nigel Johnson Ham wrote:
In line with my memories completely, Tony, although I was just a wee
sapling back then.
It is also where the terms 'A', 'B' and 'C' supplies come from,
since
there were three batteries per radio, grid bias, HT, and heaters. The
grid bias battery lasted a long time since there was very little
current drawn.
And I have fond memories of learning to play the piano by gaslight,
since the elderly spinster piano teacher and her mother refused to let
the house be connected to the electric mains as they were afraid of it!
Then of course there was the Ronan Point gas explosion which blew out
a whole floor of a high-rise building in London that might have
changed people's minds!
73 de Nigel ve3id
On 2024-05-28 13:17, Tony Duell via cctalk wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 6:06 PM ben<bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> Just what is a gas radio?
> A radio that runs off gas rather than plugging into the electricity
mains.
Let me explain. The main use for either gas or electriciy in UK homes
until the mid 1920s was heating (including cooking) and light. Both
energy sources could easily be used for that. But then a large number
of electric appliances using motors started to appear, along with
other things, like radios that ran off the electricity mains (rather
than a dry battery for the HT supply (B+) and a single-cell lead acid
accumulator for the valve filaments).
The gas supply companies were worried they would lose business as a
result and designed gas powered version of all the mains electrical
devices. One classis was the table fan which had a small Stirling-type
hot air engine to turn the blades. There was of course a little gas
burner to run the engine. The only problem was the heat of the flame
rather negated the cooling effect of the fan.
Anyway, the gas radio. This was a wooden floor-standing console
cabinet looking like most other radios of the time. The bit I
repaired (for a museum, where I understood it would be run off a
normal electrical power supply for obvious reasons) was the radio
which was a normal-for-the time 3 or 4 valve (tube) set. There was a
speaker in the cabinet too. At the bottom was the power supply. This
consisted of a gas burner with a thermopile (array of thermocouple
junctions) on top to provide the valve filament and HT voltages.
There was no flue. The combustion products were simply vented into the
room, And yes the gas burner was inside the wooden console cabinet, so
it was something of a fire risk to be polite about it.
AFAIK they were never sold to the public, thankfully.
-tony
--
Nigel Johnson, MSc., MIEEE, MCSE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU
Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept!
Skype: TILBURY2591
12:29 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 2:06 AM John Herron via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Only because I thought it would be funny to hear
ChatGPT's wrong answer.
Here is ChatGPT's answer on the first personal computer.
ME> What was the first personal computer?
ChatGPT> The first personal computer is a bit of a debated topic, but one
of the earliest and most influential examples is the Altair 8800, released
in 1975. It was developed by a company called MITS (Micro Instrumentation
and Telemetry Systems). The Altair 8800 was a build-it-yourself kit based
on the Intel 8080 microprocessor, and it featured toggle switches and LED
lights for input and output. This computer is often credited with sparking
the microcomputer revolution and inspiring a generation of computer
enthusiasts, including a young Bill Gates and Paul Allen, who famously
developed a version of the BASIC programming language for the Altair.
(Pouring gas on the fire, but thought it was funny.)
I honestly do agree that in our modern PC world, prior to the smartphone
anyway, the first major micorprocessor-driven microcomputer that was
successful in the US is the Altair.
This would be a fun topic for a series of online debates. There seem to be
a few angles
1) First microcomputer of the modern style (desktop computer running
home/small business applications)
2) First computer that was primarily used as a personal computer but not
necessarily practically or large-scale
3) First inadvertent use of a computer as a personal computer (i.e. first
application developed for personal use on a machine not originally designed
for such a purpose)
more?
BIl
3:12 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
Not sure I share your definition of 'fun'...
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 8:29 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 2:06 AM John Herron via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Only because I thought it would be funny to hear
ChatGPT's wrong answer.
Here is ChatGPT's answer on the first personal computer.
ME> What was the first personal computer?
ChatGPT> The first personal computer is a bit of a debated topic, but one
of the earliest and most influential examples is the Altair 8800, released
in 1975. It was developed by a company called MITS (Micro Instrumentation
and Telemetry Systems). The Altair 8800 was a build-it-yourself kit based
on the Intel 8080 microprocessor, and it featured toggle switches and LED
lights for input and output. This computer is often credited with sparking
the microcomputer revolution and inspiring a generation of computer
enthusiasts, including a young Bill Gates and Paul Allen, who famously
developed a version of the BASIC programming language for the Altair.
(Pouring gas on the fire, but thought it was funny.)
I honestly do agree that in our modern PC world, prior to the smartphone
anyway, the first major micorprocessor-driven microcomputer that was
successful in the US is the Altair.
This would be a fun topic for a series of online debates. There seem to be
a few angles
1) First microcomputer of the modern style (desktop computer running
home/small business applications)
2) First computer that was primarily used as a personal computer but not
necessarily practically or large-scale
3) First inadvertent use of a computer as a personal computer (i.e. first
application developed for personal use on a machine not originally designed
for such a purpose)
more?
BIl 
31 May
31 May
4:29 p.m.
New subject: Windows, Was Re: Re: First Personal Computer
On 5/30/24 07:29, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 2:06 AM John Herron via cctalk
<
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Only because I thought it would be funny to hear ChatGPT's wrong answer.
> Here is ChatGPT's answer on the first personal computer.
This would be a fun topic for a series of online
debates. There seem to be
a few angles
1) First microcomputer of the modern style (desktop computer running
home/small business applications)
2) First computer that was primarily used as a personal computer but not
necessarily practically or large-scale
3) First inadvertent use of a computer as a personal computer (i.e. first
application developed for personal use on a machine not originally designed
for such a purpose)
more?
Can we do the "Which version of Windows is 'Classic' now?" flame war
next?
Pleeeeeeeze?
Doc
7:17 p.m.
New subject: Windows, Was Re: Re: First Personal Computer
On May 31, 2024, at 9:29 AM, Doc Shipley via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Can we do the "Which version of Windows is 'Classic' now?" flame war
next?
Pleeeeeeeze?
Doc
I’m rather partial to “Bow Windows”, I feel they have a rather classic look.
Zane
28 May
28 May
5:23 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
On 5/28/24 10:05, ben via cctalk wrote:
Just what is a gas radio?
One powered by thermoelectricity fueled by lighting gas. See:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_Museum
Looks to be an English peculiarity. Akin to the wood-gas powered card.
--Chuck
5:29 p.m.
New subject: First Personal Computer
More on gas radios:
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/thermoelectric/thermoelectric.htm#…
--Chuck
24 May
24 May
6:53 p.m.
On Fri, 24 May 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
This is on the Canonical List of ClassicCmp Debate
Topics and is a dead
horse so beaten that there's nothing left but teeth and fur at this point.
Besides nobody fully comprehending what "FIRST" really means, . . .
"The Altair was just an obscure predecessor; the personal computer was
invented by Steve Jobs!" :-)
"How can you call it a 'Personal Computer' with no mouse or Windoze?"
:-)
11:17 p.m.
Well the Xerox Alto had a three button mouse, making it “extra” personal. ;)
Don Resor
Sent from someone's iPhone
On May 24, 2024, at 11:53 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
Besides nobody fully comprehending what
"FIRST" really means, . . .
"The Altair was just an obscure predecessor; the personal computer was invented by
Steve Jobs!" :-)
"How can you call it a 'Personal Computer' with no mouse or Windoze?"
:-)
11:32 p.m.
> Besides nobody fully comprehending what
"FIRST" really means, . . .
> "The Altair was just an obscure predecessor; the personal computer was invented
by Steve Jobs!" :-)
> "How can you call it a 'Personal Computer' with no mouse or
Windoze?" :-)
On Fri, 24 May 2024, Don R wrote:
Well the Xerox Alto had a three button mouse, making
it “extra” personal. ;)
You can put significant effort into creating an unambiguous definition.
But, SOMEBODY can find an example that doesn't apply that still meets the
definition.
Using the argument that Roberts was the first to CALL it a "personal
computer", means that the "MINI-Computer" was invented by a DEC marketing
person.
Relatively early (NOT "FIRST") PC mice, such as Logitech's had three
buttons.
I have heard conflicting stories about why Apple put only one button on
their mouse:
1) It would be too confusing for the user, including the need to look away
from the screen to see which mouse button is being pushed
2) Difficulty of explaining which button is which, and getting user
comprehension of such, in writing documentation
3) Jef Raskin's concept that the system should KNOW what is wanted, so
there is no need for more than one.
. . .
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
25 May
25 May
1:29 a.m.
Gak, 4k ram but 100k via virtual memory TO CASSETTE? I want one just for that. LOL Was
the cassette multi-track with one track containing timing marks, so records would not
overlay each other?
I guess I would argue the definition of a PERSONAL computer is if many or (preferably)
nearly all of them were purchased from personal accounts (credit card, check, or cash via
some kind of money order) as opposed to corporate or business accounts likely subject to
double entry bookkeeping and depreciation. Maybe being depreciated is the definition of
NOT personal?
For instance, I doubt more than one or two of those LGP-30s were purchased from a personal
account, and if so, probably by a start-up that was not yet into having a corporate
account.
This web page https://www.xnumber.com/xnumber/MCM_70_microcomputer.htm
indicates they were sold to corporations and universities, so the in the same category as
the LGP-30, which predated it by many years.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
On 05/24/2024 10:34 AM CDT Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 5/24/24 07:57, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
(I could be mistaken about the mentioned 8008
device, but I think that was a training device, no?)
Do your homewoork--the MCM-70 ran APL, had cassette storage and a
display and keyboard. The MITS 8800 had nothing other than RAM and a
CPU. APL would have been a distant dream.
Of course, the MCM0/70 was Canadian, and not USAn...
--Chuck
24 May
24 May
5:57 p.m.
On Fri, 24 May 2024, CAREY SCHUG wrote:
the LGP-30 was used by one person AT A TIME, but on
different days used
by different people, who might or might not know each other, by some
arbitrary scheduling algorithm. The one I was familiar with was run by
a tech or grad student, doing work not for self, but for another,
definitely outside the realm of "personal"
Ehm... no!
Christian
5:55 p.m.
On Fri, 24 May 2024, Sellam Abraham wrote:
The Altair was absolutely insignificant in Europe. Ok, the MICRAL, too.
I'd say, all microprocessor systems before the PET or some SBCs around the
mid 70s were totally insignificant.
Christian
On Fri, May 24, 2024, 2:45?AM Christian Corti via
cctalk <
The term "personal computer" is a modern invention. But it was definitely
designed to be used by individuals; it was personal in all ways. Although
not affordable for home use. But neither was the original IBM PC.
This would go back to the 50s or earlier. The
LGP-30 and comparable
machines are considered as personal computers, too.
But was it called a
"personal computer"? And was it designed to be
"personal"? And looking
beyond the Great American barrier ;-) there was the MICRAL N,
But it doesn't
meet the other criteria Dave laid out. Most people these
days have never heard of the Micral, but even normies might've heard of the
Altair 8800 because of the very notoriety it has today because of it's
significance back then. 
25 May
25 May
12:27 a.m.
There was a 4004 based computer developed in 1972 that was released before
the Micral called the Comstar 4. It's not very well known but it was
written about in the ACM and the Computer History Museum has a copy of
their sales manual
ACM article
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1499949.1499959
Manual at Computer History Museum
https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102686568
On Fri, May 24, 2024, 5:45 AM Christian Corti via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
And looking beyond the Great American barrier ;-) there was the MICRAL N,
much earlier than the MITS, and considered as the first complete
commercial microprocessor based computer, i.e. not a kit and available to
normal customers.
Christian
27 May
27 May
11:48 a.m.
On Fri, 24 May 2024, ??? wrote:
There was a 4004 based computer developed in 1972 that
was released before
the Micral called the Comstar 4. It's not very well known but it was
written about in the ACM and the Computer History Museum has a copy of
their sales manual
Interesting system. But it seems as it was designed as an industrial and
process control system, not much for individuals as a general purpose
"personal computer".
Christian
1:13 p.m.
The Micral N was developed for process control as well.
The only difference was that Comstar was purchased by Warmer Swasey and it
was integrated to their systems so they never marketed their systems
outside of that market.
On Mon, May 27, 2024, 7:48 AM Christian Corti via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2024, ??? wrote:
There was a 4004 based computer developed in 1972
that was released
before
the Micral called the Comstar 4. It's not
very well known but it was
written about in the ACM and the Computer History Museum has a copy of
their sales manual
Interesting system. But it seems as it was designed as an industrial and
process control system, not much for individuals as a general purpose
"personal computer".
Christian
25 May
25 May
4:01 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
I don't think the "first" applies in
this case. The MCM/70 used an 8008
On the subject of early 8008 designs - there was a Canadian one (1974 I think) the
MIL (Microsystems International Limited) MOD-8 - later also released as the GNC-8
(Great Northern Computers)
I also created an emulator for it as well - so you can experience using another very
early system if you like...
Sometime later, Scelbi 8008 BASIC was ported to it (also in my archive) - this has to
be one of the very earliest (notice I didn't say F-r-t :-) BASICs.
Dave
12:31 a.m.
First, Dave wrote:
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 15:53:53 -0400
From: Dave Dunfield
I've just passed on my "Mits Altair
8800" - this is a very historic system
from the 70s - it is:
First system Bill Gates wrote code for (long before
Microsoft)
Which is on the face of it incorrect.
Then Christian Corti responded (in replying to someone else's objection to
Dave's claim of firstness:
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 11:44:46 +0200 (CEST)
From: Christian Corti via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
> > First system Bill Gates
wrote code for (long before Microsoft)
Didn't he write code for DEC machines at his
school before that?
Which is nearer the mark, but not fully correct.
Then Sellam Abraham stuck his oar in:
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 07:40:31 -0700
From: Sellam Abraham via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
> Didn't he write code for DEC machines at his
school before that?
Yes, poorly.
Oh, FFS, Sellam.
OK. Once again, the history goes like this. I have heard it from the horses'
mouths (yes, plural).
Bill Gates and Paul Allen, along with 4 other students (out of a class of about
20), really cottoned onto programming in BASIC when a class was offered at
their school, the Lakeside School in Seattle. That class used a remote
timesharing service called GEIS (General Electric Information System), which
ran on GE 635 computers.
The six boys (it was a boys' school until the next year when it went co-ed)
were allowed to visit a new computer service bureau called CCC, because one of
their mothers was acquainted with one of the primaries. This company was using
a DEC PDP-10 timesharing system; the boys were given guest accounts under the
proviso that when the system crashed they would document what they were doing
at the time of the crash.
They were so eager to learn that the systems programmers (two MIT alums and a
Stanford alum) allowed them access to the hardware and system call reference
manuals, so that they learned assembler programming as well as BASIC, to an
expert level.
The summer between Paul's graduation and starting college, he along with Bill
and three others of the group got ACTUAL PAYING JOBS PROGRAMMING PDP-10 SYSTEMS
FOR THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, on a project called RODS (Real-time
Operational Data System) which used the systems for control purposes. (The
sixth member of their coterie got a job as a junior ranger at Mount Rainier
National Park, so wasn't interested in being indoors all day all summer.)
Paul dropped out of college after his sophomore year and moved to the Boston
area, where he worked for Honeywell's software division and hung out with Bill
and Bill's college friends, meanwhile looking for a way to have a small
computer of their own. They read the industry magazines to news of small
systems.
In the mean time, they tried to create a company to sell a traffic counting
device based on the Intel 8008 microprocessor. The prototype hardware failed
in their first demonstration to the City of Seattle traffic department, and
they shelved the idea.
When the Altair issue of Popular Electronics came out in mid-December 1974
(cover data January 1975), they were prepared for the challenge. After
ascertaining that Ed Roberts and MITS would entertain the idea of looking at a
BASIC interpreter for the new system, they sat down and created one from whole
cloth, with the division of labor as follows:
Bill Gates: the interpreter itself
Paul Allen: a simulator running on the PDP-10 for the Intel 8080 processor
Monte Davidoff: a math whiz freshman who wrote the transcendental math routines
(My sources are Paul Allen and Bob Barnett. Bob was Paul and Bill's manager at
RODS, and the original business manager for Living Computer Museum. I have no
reason to believe that either had any reason to lie to me.)
Micro-soft incorporated in June/July 1975, so six months after they wrote their
first 8080 machine code, so Dave is wrong about "long before Microsoft".
And Sellam is simply wrong.
Rich
3:30 a.m.
Weill .. I certainly expected lots of "discussion" on these statements
about my Altair:
I have never claimed to be an "unknown drip"(*) on details of computer
history, but here is my reasoning:
First Personal Computer (long before IBM PC)
I am well aware of small systems that predated the Altair, but they
are/were not neary as well known (mainly due to Jan/Feb 1975 Popular
Electronics), and I don't recall that nearly as many of them were as
commonly owned and operated by "people of modest means" and/or not
"in the industry".
And unlike most predecessors it was expandable by a means that grew
onto a whole industry.
I too generally avoid using "first" in history discussions... but
At one time I discussed this with Ed Roberts, the creator of the
Altair, and he said:
"We coined the phrase Personal Computer and it was first applied
to the Altair, i.e., by definition the first personal computer."
...
"The beginning of the personal computer industry started without
question at MITS with the Altair."
First S100 buss system
Originally called "Roberts Buss" the Atair expansion buss was used by
many systems that followed, and not wanting to use their competitors
name, the buss became known as "S100" (presumably System buss with
100 pins)
Again, Ed Roberts confirmed this to me.
First system Bill Gates wrote code for (long before
Microsoft)
I should have qualified this with "well known published" code.
As far as I know, Bill's career really went off with his
implementation of BASIC - which became: Mits Altair Basic
And perhaps Microsoft started "only a few years" after (which WAS a
LONG time in those days of the industry) - but it wasn't anywhere
what it would become some years after that! - and I don't think it was
at all well known till MS-DOS (post IBM-PC).
But again, I don't claim to be:
(*)
X - marks the unknown
Spurt - a drip under pressure
.. and I don't claim to be an "unknown drip under pressure"
(I'll happily leave that honor to others in the group :-)
Dave
3:55 a.m.
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 11:30 PM Dave Dunfield via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Weill .. I certainly expected lots of
"discussion" on these statements
about my Altair:
I have never claimed to be an "unknown drip"(*) on details of computer
history, but here is my reasoning:
With respect, I have studied the 1956 Royal McBee LGP-23 (and later -30) at
length and found one could easily use this computer as a "personal
computer". The machine docs indicate that it was sold for general computing
use, operated in real time by one person. From the training materials I
have on hand, it appears as if this machine was intended as an open system
and people were trained to have at it. The Friden Flexowriter was the I/O
device, a bootstrap was loaded into the drum memory and off you went.
THe LGP-30 inspired Kertz and Kimmeny to write BASIC. One might find it
pretty easy to program "Hunt the Wumpus" using this machine, but it was not
powerful enough to run BASIC as it was written originally.
Pretty cool if you ask me and I don't know of any other stand-alone
computer intended to be used specifically as a one person general
electronic computing device before the LGP-23/30. A first? Not saying
that, but my definition of personal computer is met by the Royal McBee
LGP. Conclude what you want.
If anyone has a spare LGP-23 or 30 please send to me, thanks in advance. I
will come pick it up.
Bill Degnan
First Personal Computer (long before IBM PC)
I am well aware of small systems that predated the Altair, but they
are/were not neary as well known (mainly due to Jan/Feb 1975 Popular
Electronics), and I don't recall that nearly as many of them were as
commonly owned and operated by "people of modest means" and/or not
"in the industry".
And unlike most predecessors it was expandable by a means that grew
onto a whole industry.
28 May
28 May
12:15 p.m.
With respect, I have studied the 1956 Royal McBee
LGP-23 (and later -30) at
length and found one could easily use this computer as a "personal
computer".
I've not see one of these - that's a VERY early system! Sounds like it
could have been used for "personal" computing - but was it common and
inexpensive enough that "average people" could have one?
I just went on Ed Roberts claim to be one who coined the term "Personal
Computer" - I've not found any specific references to this term pre-dating
1975 ... but who knows! (I've not really looked that hard :-)
One might find it pretty easy to program "Hunt the
Wumpus" ...
Interesting reference.. My Altair eventually had a "North Star" MDC-A1
installed, this is a very early SSSD floppy disk system - a whopping 90k
per diskette.
When I created my Altair emulator (about 2003 IIRC), I made and included .NSI
(NorthStarImage)s of all the non-junk floppy disks I had at that time.
This included a couple "games" disks, and "Hunt The Wumpus" is there!
Dave Dunfield - https://dunfield.themindfactory.com
1:56 p.m.
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 8:15 AM Dave Dunfield via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I don't consider whether a computer is inexpensive enough for the average
person to use as a criteria for whether a computer could be considered by
nature a personal computer. The key for me is "by nature". The manual
and training materials for the LGP-30, which I have studied and worked with
extensively, walk the average person how to use it as if it were a personal
computer, even if they don't use that term in the manuals. I believe the
LGP-30's were for the academic market, and large companies who had research
labs. The materials I have are from DuPont in Wilmington Delaware.
In the 50's a personal computer would be the same cost as a house, but can
the average person afford a house now? Does that no longer make it a
house? I did not have enough money to buy a Sinclair TS1000 when they
first came out, my parents would never have bought one as it would have
appeared a frivolous expense then. But no one would argue that the TS1000
(ZX81) was a personal computer.
The LGP-30 had 3 tubes in it's clock module card, it was not a small, easy
to move system, but it was contained in a single piece of furniture. My
vote is for the LGP-30 to be considered among the first electronic personal
computers. In simplest terms - a computer with an instruction set,
programmable, saved programs, has RAM of some sort, electronic (not
analog). Analog computers are a separate class as far as I am concerned,
as are mechanical calculators, etc.
The LGP-30 pre-dates the Bendix 15 and no where in any of those user
manuals does it indicate anything hinting at personal use of the computer.
IT was designed and marketed as a miniconmputer / industrial tool computer.
Bill
With respect, I
have studied the 1956 Royal McBee LGP-23 (and later -30)
at
length and found one could easily use this
computer as a "personal
computer".
I've not see one of these - that's a VERY early system! Sounds like it
could have been used for "personal" computing - but was it common and
inexpensive enough that "average people" could have one?
I just went on Ed Roberts claim to be one who coined the term "Personal
Computer" - I've not found any specific references to this term pre-dating
1975 ... but who knows! (I've not really looked that hard :-)
Not everyone speaks English, who knows if there is a Spanish, German,
French, etc. use of the term. It would be hard to claim "first" of
anything like that.
One might find it pretty easy to program
"Hunt the Wumpus" ...
2:16 p.m.
On May 28, 2024, at 9:56 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
I don't consider whether a computer is inexpensive enough for the average
person to use as a criteria for whether a computer could be considered by
nature a personal computer.
And that makes sense. Consider that cell phones have always clearly been personal phones,
but the first ones were definitely not priced for the "average person", not by a
long shot.
paul
2:24 p.m.
On Tue, May 28, 2024, 7:16 AM Paul Koning via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
And that makes sense. Consider that cell phones have always clearly been
personal phones, but the first ones were definitely not priced for the
"average person", not by a long shot.
paul
Are you comparing a telephone, which can and only ever has (until the
speakerphone) been able to be used by one person and one person only?
The term "personal" as we use it for computers does not at all apply to
telephones. Telephones are more akin to toothbrushes in terms of their
use, or in a family situation, the toilet. It's not at all a fitting
analogy.
Sellam
2:57 p.m.
New subject: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]
I still return to.
-->Who bought them?<--
Unless at least 5% (see quibbling below) of new purchases were by private individuals, not
required for their gainful employment, they are "single user computers", not
"personal computers". "Personal" is how they are used, not how they
could be used.
They do not become "personal computers" 40 years later when the only sales,
used, are to private individuals. If I buy a retired electric streetcare, does that make
all streetcars "personal transportation"?
Actually, I'd prefer to say 10% of purchases, where a corporate PO for 2500 computers
in a lot counts as one, and Sally Smith buying one for her kids to play with also counts
as one. Fred Jones buying one to manage his personal stock portfolio counts as personal,
but Sara Perez buying one to manage her paid clients' portfolios does not.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
On 05/28/2024 9:24 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2024, 7:16 AM Paul Koning via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
And that makes sense. Consider that cell phones have always clearly been
personal phones, but the first ones were definitely not priced for the
"average person", not by a long shot.
paul
Are you comparing a telephone, which can and only ever has (until the
speakerphone) been able to be used by one person and one person only?
The term "personal" as we use it for computers does not at all apply to
telephones. Telephones are more akin to toothbrushes in terms of their
use, or in a family situation, the toilet. It's not at all a fitting
analogy.
Sellam
>
2:59 p.m.
New subject: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]
On Tue, May 28, 2024, 7:57 AM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
I still return to.
-->Who bought them?<--
What if Dad bought one for use by the entire family?
Sellam
3:25 p.m.
New subject: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]
I thought that was covered by the suggested person buying for their kids being personal?
No?
sorry, my apologies, I should have made a paragraph break, I was mixing purchase orders
with individual purchases. see square brackets for clarifications
---
"Actually, I'd prefer to say 10% of purchases, where a corporate PO for 2500
computers in a lot counts as one [purchase], and Sally Smith buying one for her kids to
play with also counts as one [purchase].
[added: so there could be 9 corporations buying 2500 each, and one average joe buying one
to play with, and it could be a personal computer. Assuming LGP-30s were purchased 1 or
two at a time, the home installations would have to be 5-10 % of total units sold]
[***missing paragraph break***]
Fred Jones buying one [computer] to manage his personal stock portfolio counts as
personal, but Sara Perez buying one [computer] to manage her paid clients' portfolios
does not."
[reasoning: if purpose is to make money, it is an investment for business gain]
If somebody bought an LGP-30 for their family to play with, that particular instance
[computer] was personal, but the percentage rule still kicks in. [Were 10% of all
purchases of LGP-30s made by parents for their kids to play with?]
---
Same concept as, if one guy living in a formerly industrial loft has water cooling, and
300 amp 3 phase power available, that does NOT make any computer requiring that
"personal". For that I'd say must be able to plug into 50% of all homes,
but realize more quibbling might apply there, such as 90% of all "middle class"
homes.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
On 05/28/2024 9:59 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2024, 7:57 AM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
I still return to.
-->Who bought them?<--
What if Dad bought one for use by the entire family?
Sellam
5:02 p.m.
New subject: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]
Same concept as, if one guy living in a formerly
industrial loft has water cooling, and 300 amp 3 phase power available, that does NOT make
any computer requiring that "personal". For that I'd say must be able to
plug into 50% of all homes, but realize more quibbling might apply there, such as 90% of
all "middle class" homes.
For me to have a computer, means taking it 3 flights of stairs.
Thus most vintage computers, I don't even think about them.
6:32 p.m.
New subject: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]
On 5/28/24 12:02, ben via cctalk wrote:
There's a story about a guy in Australia that found an
abandoned IBM 360/30 in a storage/shipper's warehouse and
dragged it to a rented office space that had no elevator. He
carefully dismantled it, dragged the pieces up to at least
the 2nd or 3rd floor, put it back together and got it running!
QUITE a story!
Jon
Same concept as, if one guy living in a formerly
industrial loft has water cooling, and 300 amp 3 phase
power available, that does NOT make any computer
requiring that "personal". For that I'd say must be able
to plug into 50% of all homes, but realize more quibbling
might apply there, such as 90% of all "middle class" homes.
For me to have a computer, means taking it 3 flights of
stairs.
Thus most vintage computers, I don't even think about them.
6:42 p.m.
New subject: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]
Since I belive ALL IBM computers in that era were ONLY leased, it is technically still the
property of IBM and they could claim it back.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
On 05/28/2024 1:32 PM CDT Jon Elson via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 5/28/24 12:02, ben via cctalk wrote:
There's a story about a guy in Australia that found an
abandoned IBM 360/30 in a storage/shipper's warehouse and
dragged it to a rented office space that had no elevator. He
carefully dismantled it, dragged the pieces up to at least
the 2nd or 3rd floor, put it back together and got it running!
QUITE a story!
Jon
Same concept as, if one guy living in a formerly
industrial loft has water cooling, and 300 amp 3 phase
power available, that does NOT make any computer
requiring that "personal". For that I'd say must be able
to plug into 50% of all homes, but realize more quibbling
might apply there, such as 90% of all "middle class" homes.
For me to have a computer, means taking it 3 flights of
stairs.
Thus most vintage computers, I don't even think about them.
9:37 p.m.
New subject: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]
On Tue, 28 May 2024, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
Since I belive ALL IBM computers in that era were ONLY
leased, it is technically still the property of IBM and they could claim it back.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
So, . . .
RENTING (including "rent to own" scams) a "personal computer" makes it
not "personal"?
1 Jun
1 Jun
12:20 p.m.
New subject: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]
On Tue, 28 May 2024 at 19:32, Jon Elson via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
There's a story about a guy in Australia that
found an
abandoned IBM 360/30 in a storage/shipper's warehouse and
dragged it to a rented office space that had no elevator. He
carefully dismantled it, dragged the pieces up to at least
the 2nd or 3rd floor, put it back together and got it running!
QUITE a story!
https://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360/Saga.html
That one? Lawrence is on this list and posts occasionally. He's real:
I've met him. He was kind enough to give me some boxed copies of OS/2.
:-)
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
7:02 p.m.
New subject: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]
On 6/1/24 07:20, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2024 at 19:32, Jon Elson via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Yes, this is exactly they guy and story I was referring to.
Unfortunately, I've never been to NZ (I got the location
slightly wrong) but I'm sure meeting him would result in the
exchange of many great war stories.
Jon
There's a story about a guy in Australia that
found an
abandoned IBM 360/30 in a storage/shipper's warehouse and
dragged it to a rented office space that had no elevator. He
carefully dismantled it, dragged the pieces up to at least
the 2nd or 3rd floor, put it back together and got it running!
QUITE a story!
https://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360/Saga.html
That one? Lawrence is on this list and posts occasionally. He's real:
I've met him. He was kind enough to give me some boxed copies of OS/2.
:-)
7:41 p.m.
New subject: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]
On 1/06/24 14:20, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
https://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360/Saga.html
That one? Lawrence is on this list and posts occasionally. He's real:
I've met him. He was kind enough to give me some boxed copies of OS/2.
:-)
Yes, I can confirm that I am real.
Incidentally, I found some of the documents from the time, including
templates I made to sort out the room layout.
The templates have a basic version, and one that includes the doors and
logic 'gates' which swing out for servicing.
2030 is the CPU with the 1051/1052 typewriter, 2841 is the Storage
Control (Disk Controller, if you like.)
The small things are the three 2311 disk drives and the disk pack rack.
Room layout: https://flic.kr/p/2pDGdZc
Templates: https://flic.kr/p/2pDFyZi
--
Lawrence Wilkinson lawrence at ljw.me.uk
The IBM 360/30 pagehttp://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360
3 Jun
3 Jun
12:08 p.m.
New subject: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 at 21:11, Lawrence Wilkinson via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Yes, I can confirm that I am real.
:-D
And better still, extant.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
29 May
29 May
7:43 a.m.
New subject: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]
On Tue, 28 May 2024, CAREY SCHUG wrote:
Unless at least 5% (see quibbling below) of new
purchases were by
private individuals, not required for their gainful employment, they are
"single user computers", not "personal computers".
"Personal" is how
they are used, not how they could be used.
In my opinion, the essential difference between "single user" and
"personal" is the kind of physical access to the computer.
A "single user" computer may run unattended in a lab, as part of a larger
system, or as a special processor for data processing, whatever.
In contrast to this, a "personal" computer is a machine where by design,
you actually work in front of it and interact with it personally - not in
the style of a systems' operator, but for all the tasks the computer
should do for _you_.
Christian
28 May
28 May
3 p.m.
Au crontraire, I belive the first mobile phones were mostly purchased by corporations for
their executives to use, if the executive left, the phone stayed with the corporation.
Early mobile phones were NOT personal devices.
Back to "who bought them" as a criteria.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
On 05/28/2024 9:16 AM CDT Paul Koning via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On May 28, 2024, at 9:56 AM, Bill Degnan via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
I don't consider whether a computer is inexpensive enough for the average
person to use as a criteria for whether a computer could be considered by
nature a personal computer.
And that makes sense. Consider that cell phones have always clearly been personal
phones, but the first ones were definitely not priced for the "average person",
not by a long shot.
paul
6:28 p.m.
On 5/28/24 10:00, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
Au crontraire, I belive the first mobile phones were
mostly purchased by corporations for their executives to use, if the executive left, the
phone stayed with the corporation. Early mobile phones were NOT personal devices.
In 1971 or 1972 I was in the Washington DC airport executive
lounge. Dolly Parton was in there, she had two gofers
getting her coffee and stuff, and she had a large "bag
phone" that she was on a lot of the time, presumably making
arrangements for shows. This was a square-cornered hard bag
with a shoulder strap, and there was an old-style handset
with a coil cord connected to it. The bag was something
like 10 by 8 x 4" and appeared to be quite heavy. I am
pretty sure the thing was "personal" to her.
Jon
6:53 p.m.
On 5/28/2024 2:28 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
On 5/28/24 10:00, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
My wife had one. It was definitely personal.
bill
Au crontraire, I belive the first mobile phones
were mostly purchased
by corporations for their executives to use, if the executive left,
the phone stayed with the corporation. Early mobile phones were NOT
personal devices.
In 1971 or 1972 I was in the Washington DC airport executive lounge.
Dolly Parton was in there, she had two gofers getting her coffee and
stuff, and she had a large "bag phone" that she was on a lot of the
time, presumably making arrangements for shows. This was a
square-cornered hard bag with a shoulder strap, and there was an
old-style handset with a coil cord connected to it. The bag was
something like 10 by 8 x 4" and appeared to be quite heavy. I am pretty
sure the thing was "personal" to her.
9:21 p.m.
On Tue, 28 May 2024, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
In 1971 or 1972 I was in the Washington DC airport
executive lounge. Dolly
Parton was in there, she had two gofers getting her coffee and stuff, and she
had a large "bag phone" that she was on a lot of the time, presumably making
arrangements for shows. This was a square-cornered hard bag with a shoulder
strap, and there was an old-style handset with a coil cord connected to it.
The bag was something like 10 by 8 x 4" and appeared to be quite heavy. I
am pretty sure the thing was "personal" to her.
On Tue, 28 May 2024, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
[reasoning: if purpose is to make money, it is an
investment for business gain]
Therefore, since Dolly Parton was "presumably making arrangements for
shows", then by CAREY SCHUG's criteris, it was NOT "personal" to her.
. . . and that of the dozens of "personal computers" that I had prior to Y2K,
none of them were "personal"
We can never agree on the definition. The blind men are fixxated on
individual features of the elephant.
I contend that making money, and purchasing by a business and handing out
to employees, are orthogonal to whether it is a "personal" computer, and
on a par with whether it was in the bedroom, living room, or home office.
(bedroom (unless a sex-worker) is "personal", kitchen table or home office
is not.)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
31 May
31 May
4:07 p.m.
On Tue, 28 May 2024 at 22:21, Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
We can never agree on the definition. The blind men are fixxated on
individual features of the elephant.
You have a point. You usually do, Fred.
I am surprised one thing hasn't been mentioned yet.
Any computer can be "personal" if only one person uses it for their
own private purposes, right?
My first fiancée's dad had what he reckoned was the first mainframe in
Norway. (And Norway was, I believe, the first country outside North
America on the internet.) He worked for the state oil company and
persuaded them that having _a computer_ for modelling and so on was
worth it. So they bought one and gave it to him. It took the whole
floor of the building below his office. He had some serious clout.
But they didn't have a plan for what to do with it, so for its first
year or so, he was the sole user, learning what it could do, what
languages it supported, etc.
He died about 20Y ago now so I can't ask him, but IIRC, by the time he
did his feasibility report, it was largely obsolete so it was never
really used and they bought another, newer one for actual production.
He thought it was hilarious that this multi-million-krone machine was
his personal computer.
It would probably fit the earlier poster's definition of a "real OS"
which I thought was so spurious.
But OTOH I would concur that things like that IBM APL machine that the
legendary time traveller John Titor wanted wasn't a "PC" -- not a
"real OS" but in the sense that it was a sort of glorified
programmable calculator, not able to be used for general purpose use.
If you can't write a letter on it, is it a PC?
I suggest a somewhat arbirtrary rule: not merely needing a general
purpose OS, able to be programmed but able to run applications for
multiple uses including text editing, but simple games and things....
But intended for a single user. Not a departmental machine with 1
user. Not a multiuser box that happens to only have 1.
And also not a brilliant inspired but ultra-limited thing like a
Kenbak or some hexadecimal trainer.
It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify.
Microprocessors are what created the PC. No µP = not a PC.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
5:56 p.m.
Liam Proven via cctalk [31/05/2024 18.07]:
My first fiancée's dad had what he reckoned was
the first mainframe in
Norway.
Was it this:
<https://snl.no/NUSSE> - in Norwegian, machine translation work ok.
<https://www.alamy.com/oslo-1954-nusse-norways-first-computer-nusse-is-an-electronic-calculator-as-electrical-engineers-and-foodamaticians-at-the-university-of-blindern-test-runner-nusse-is-a-slave-to-the-norwegian-computer-center-and-is-open-to-research-and-industry-here-the-actual-employee-plays-the-game-nim-against-the-machine-nusse-while-researchers-amble-hysing-and-evjen-are-looking-at-photo-sverre-a-brretzen-current-ntb-image487280771.html>
--
Hilsen Harald
1 Jun
1 Jun
12:32 p.m.
On Fri, 31 May 2024 at 18:57, Harald Arnesen via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Liam Proven via cctalk [31/05/2024 18.07]:
Thanks for the link -- an interesting read!
(I used to speak basic Norwegian but that was too much for me.)
No, this would have been later, I think. Terje Thunem was the man, and
I think he worked for Statoil. I only met him after he had retired.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
My first fiancée's dad had what he reckoned
was the first mainframe in
Norway.
Was it this:
<https://snl.no/NUSSE> - in Norwegian, machine translation work ok.
31 May
31 May
10:02 p.m.
Liam Proven wrote:
It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify.
... No µP = not a PC.
Not entirely sure ...
http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv
Dave
11:37 p.m.
I quite agree. I do believe that a *u*P is the minimum that can be accepted
to call a PC a microcomputer. Another is that it must be usable, i.e.,
non-programmable, for the average PC owner. Like a car one doesn't need to
know how it works in order to drive/use a car to get from one place to
another. One can use a computer to solve a spreadsheet problem in an
efficient manner without learning the inner-workings of such spreadsheet.
Happy computing,
Murray 🙂
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:02 PM Dave Dunfield via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Liam Proven wrote:
It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify.
... No µP = not a PC.
Not entirely sure ...
http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv
Dave
1 Jun
1 Jun
12:29 a.m.
On 2024May 31,, at 4:37 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:02 PM Dave Dunfield via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Liam Proven wrote:
>> It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify.
>> ... No µP = not a PC.
>
> Not entirely sure ...
> http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv
>
> Dave
>
I quite agree. I do believe that a *u*P is the minimum
that can be accepted
to call a PC a microcomputer. Another is that it must be usable, i.e.,
non-programmable, for the average PC owner. Like a car one doesn't need to
know how it works in order to drive/use a car to get from one place to
another. One can use a computer to solve a spreadsheet problem in an
efficient manner without learning the inner-workings of such spreadsheet.
Happy computing,
Murray 🙂
With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone who thinks they have the definitive
definition of ‘first’ or ‘personal’, I will just mention that:
• the HP9830 (1972),
• Wang 2200 (1973),
• IBM 5100 (1975)
were all:
• single-user,
• desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal)
• fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and display),
• boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100)
machines.
None of them used a microprocessor.
And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer of ~10 years
later.
12:53 a.m.
I would accept a bit-slice. as I understand that, you take 8 of them and daisychain them
to act on a byte of data. Many early minis used them afaik.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
On 05/31/2024 7:29 PM CDT Brent Hilpert via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 2024May 31,, at 4:37 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:02 PM Dave Dunfield via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Liam Proven wrote:
>> It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify.
>> ... No µP = not a PC.
>
> Not entirely sure ...
> http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv
>
> Dave
>
I quite agree. I do believe that a *u*P is the
minimum that can be accepted
to call a PC a microcomputer. Another is that it must be usable, i.e.,
non-programmable, for the average PC owner. Like a car one doesn't need to
know how it works in order to drive/use a car to get from one place to
another. One can use a computer to solve a spreadsheet problem in an
efficient manner without learning the inner-workings of such spreadsheet.
Happy computing,
Murray 🙂
With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone who thinks they have the definitive
definition of ‘first’ or ‘personal’, I will just mention that:
• the HP9830 (1972),
• Wang 2200 (1973),
• IBM 5100 (1975)
were all:
• single-user,
• desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal)
• fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and display),
• boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100)
machines.
None of them used a microprocessor.
And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer of ~10 years
later.
1:17 a.m.
It appears that I am in error. I see that micro-electronics or something
similar can be used in a computer or computer-like device. If a non-uP
machine accomplishes the same result then I bow to being corrected. I
want/wish to learn new things.
Happy computing,
Murray 🙂
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 8:54 PM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I would accept a bit-slice. as I understand that, you
take 8 of them and
daisychain them to act on a byte of data. Many early minis used them afaik.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
accepted
have the definitive definition of ‘first’ or ‘personal’, I will just
mention that:
On 05/31/2024 7:29 PM CDT Brent Hilpert via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 2024May 31,, at 4:37 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:02 PM Dave
Dunfield via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Liam
Proven wrote:
>> It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify.
>> ... No µP = not a PC.
>
> Not entirely sure ...
> http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv
>
> Dave
>
> I quite agree. I do believe that a *u*P is the minimum that can be
> to call a PC a microcomputer. Another is
that it must be usable, i.e.,
> non-programmable, for the average PC owner. Like a car one doesn't
need to
> know how it works in order to drive/use a
car to get from one place to
> another. One can use a computer to solve a spreadsheet problem in an
> efficient manner without learning the inner-workings of such
spreadsheet.
Happy
computing,
Murray 🙂
With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone who thinks they
• the HP9830 (1972),
• Wang 2200 (1973),
• IBM 5100 (1975)
were all:
• single-user,
• desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal)
• fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and display),
• boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100)
machines.
None of them used a microprocessor.
And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal
computer of ~10 years later.
12:44 p.m.
With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone
who thinks they have the definitive definition of ‘first’ or ‘personal’, I will just
mention that:
• the HP9830 (1972),
• Wang 2200 (1973),
• IBM 5100 (1975)
were all:
• single-user,
• desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal)
• fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and display),
• boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100)
machines.
None of them used a microprocessor.
And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer of ~10 years
later.
I had some of those in mind -- I mentioned the IBM 5100 in passing.
I don't think any qualify, no, myself. Only if one looks backwards
from a world with PCs in it and looks for earlier similar devices.
It's like saying that steam trains were early cars. They weren't.
Motor vehicles, yes. Self-contained, move under their own power... but
not wherever you want to go, not steerable by the driver, and most of
all, too big for private ownership for all but royalty.
The thing with the handful of very-late-1960s/very-early-1970s
all-in-one desktops is that they were _vastly_ expensive, mostly only
ran one program (possibly a programming language) and only did one
task. Most did not let you go and buy 3rd party software and run it on
your machine.
There's a line here, and it is somewhere around being ownable by an
individual for their own use, usable for multiple tasks via
pre-existing software that can be loaded and used by a non-expert, and
which is usable and useful without programming skills.
A dedicated word processor isn't a PC. An IBM Displaywriter has a lot
in common with the IBM PC but it's not a PC. An IBM System 9000 isn't
really a PC. A desktop machine that can run APL, one of the most
inscrutable and opaque programming languages ever designed this side
of INTERCAL, isn't a PC. It's not even a calculator. What APL can do
can't even be *described* to the average person who might productively
use a spreadsheet. "Matrix arithmetic" is of even less relevance to
everyday life than algebra.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
1:32 p.m.
On 01/06/2024 13:44, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
That's a terrible analogy. The first cars were indeed ludicrously
expensive and owned almost exclusively by the wealthy and upper classes.
It took a good 20 years for the car to become affordable to the masses,
in the shape of the Ford Model T. And even then, the Model T wasn't
driven in any way similar to a modern car, it would take the Austin 7,
first built 15 years after the Model T, to truly standardize driving
controls. So given the whole "car" analogy, the first "personal
computer" could well date back much further than you claim. Whether it
is affordable to the masses does not dictate whether it is "personal" or
not. It's the same argument many use for the Alto being the first
computer with a GUI. We don't define it by how accessible by regular
consumers it is, we define it as the first, because it was the first.
The fact no-one could buy one is irrelevant. I don't see how the
definition of a "personal" computer is any different. A PDP-8 could be
defined as a personal computer. It's single user, interactive, it sits
on a desk, and it doesn't require a team of trained professionals to
operate it. This argument has been made time and time again. I don't
think any solid definition could ever be made, because it's so
subjective. it's the same as asking what is the cutoff for "retro" or
"vintage" computers. There's no point discussing it because no-one will
agree on an exact definition. And you can hate me, but in my opinion
Pentium 4's are definitely retro. Thanks, Josh Rice
d they all
functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer of ~10 years later.
I had some of those in mind -- I mentioned the IBM 5100 in passing.
I don't think any qualify, no, myself. Only if one looks backwards
from a world with PCs in it and looks for earlier similar devices.
It's like saying that steam trains were early cars. They weren't.
Motor vehicles, yes. Self-contained, move under their own power... but
not wherever you want to go, not steerable by the driver, and most of
all, too big for private ownership for all but royalty.
5 Jun
5 Jun
12:17 p.m.
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 at 14:32, Joshua Rice via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
That's a terrible analogy. The first cars were
indeed ludicrously
expensive and owned almost exclusively by the wealthy and upper classes.
It took a good 20 years for the car to become affordable to the masses,
in the shape of the Ford Model T. And even then, the Model T wasn't
driven in any way similar to a modern car, it would take the Austin 7,
first built 15 years after the Model T, to truly standardize driving
controls.
You are missing the point of the analogy.
Here is the argument I parody: "look, cars were not the first motor
vehicles, because there were trains. Trains are motor vehicles that
move people and therefore you are wrong when you say cars were the
first motor vehicles."
I was comparing this with computers. Yes, there were standalone
single-user desktop computers before the microprocessor. But the point
is that _because_ they did not have microprocessors, they cost many
thousands of dollars (HP, IBM) to tens of thousands of dollars
(Tektronix) at that time, meaning tens to hundreds of thousands today.
It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
You can't say "but home plumbing isn't new -- the Romans had running
water and people had inside toilets in the 18th century!" when the
"people" who had indoor toilets were only the monarchs.
That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means
ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only
personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe.
Not kings and emperors and captains of industry.
It's like saying "by the early 21st century, everyone had their own
private jet". It is not true: the 0.001% of the richest of the rich
have private jets. They exist as private transport but we do not all
have personal jets.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
12:30 p.m.
It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
that's an important distinction, affordability. You define personal
computers to contain microprocessors, which made them affordable. The
demand was always there, it's the point in the demand curve that allowed x%
of the population of an affluent country to afford them. Above the
point, not personal past it, personal.
Is that what you're saying?
3:25 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 5:30 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
The DigiComp 1 affordable for basically everyone.
Sellam
It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
that's an important distinction, affordability. You define personal
computers to contain microprocessors, which made them affordable. The
demand was always there, it's the point in the demand curve that allowed x%
of the population of an affluent country to afford them. Above the
point, not personal past it, personal.
Is that what you're saying?
10:25 p.m.
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 13:30, Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
that's an important distinction, affordability.
You define personal
computers to contain microprocessors, which made them affordable. The
demand was always there, it's the point in the demand curve that allowed x%
of the population of an affluent country to afford them. Above the
point, not personal past it, personal.
Is that what you're saying?
Yep, pretty much.
This is one way of _describing_ it. There are others.
Another way of looking at it is this: a personal computer is a type of
microcomputer. This is using the old classification of microcomputer,
minicomputer and mainframe.
If a device is not a microcomputer, it then must be either a
minicomputer or a mainframe. Early on many mainframes didn't even
support interactive sessions so they more or less disqualified
themselves from being "personal" in any commonly-understood sense.
Which leaves minicomputers.
A single-user desktop (or deskside) minicomputer isn't a personal
computer, because it's not a microcomputer. (And it costs as much as a
car.) Then what is it? What do you call a single-user minicomputer?
The other, often overlooked category: it's a workstation.
Workstations, for as long as they existed, were personal computer
_like_ devices but typically an order of magnitude more powerful and
an order of magnitude more expensive. They also generally ran what ben
mononym calls a proper OS.
Workstations existed before microcomputers and before personal
computers, and continued happily existing for about 30 more years, but
by the time of 32-bit high-performance PCs with grown-up OSs, they
were teetering, and by the time of commodity _64-bit_ PCs, or
multiprocessor/multicore PCs with OSes that could use that, or of
course both (64-bit multi-core), they were dead.
A workstation wasn't really a type of PC. They exceeded PCs in
specification, in performance, in price, and in sophistication of the
OS... and when PCs caught up, they obliterated workstations because
workstations also exceeded PCs in price by, as I said, at least an
additional zero.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
10:49 p.m.
"Workstation"??!?
Several decades ago, out department chairPERSON, who was a recent UC
Berkeley PhD graduate, came running into the lab, shouting, "I think
that we're getting SUN computers!" (we had a few dozen cheap PCs).
She had heard from the loading dock that they had a couple of boxes
labeled "Computer Workstation" arriving for us.
She was so disappointed, when the "Computer Workstations" turned out to be
work tables on casters for holding a computer, to provide a fancier stand
for holding the computer that the instructor uses in the classroom.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 13:30, Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
that's an important distinction,
affordability. You define personal
computers to contain microprocessors, which made them affordable. The
demand was always there, it's the point in the demand curve that allowed x%
of the population of an affluent country to afford them. Above the
point, not personal past it, personal.
Is that what you're saying?
Yep, pretty much.
This is one way of _describing_ it. There are others.
Another way of looking at it is this: a personal computer is a type of
microcomputer. This is using the old classification of microcomputer,
minicomputer and mainframe.
If a device is not a microcomputer, it then must be either a
minicomputer or a mainframe. Early on many mainframes didn't even
support interactive sessions so they more or less disqualified
themselves from being "personal" in any commonly-understood sense.
Which leaves minicomputers.
A single-user desktop (or deskside) minicomputer isn't a personal
computer, because it's not a microcomputer. (And it costs as much as a
car.) Then what is it? What do you call a single-user minicomputer?
The other, often overlooked category: it's a workstation.
Workstations, for as long as they existed, were personal computer
_like_ devices but typically an order of magnitude more powerful and
an order of magnitude more expensive. They also generally ran what ben
mononym calls a proper OS.
Workstations existed before microcomputers and before personal
computers, and continued happily existing for about 30 more years, but
by the time of 32-bit high-performance PCs with grown-up OSs, they
were teetering, and by the time of commodity _64-bit_ PCs, or
multiprocessor/multicore PCs with OSes that could use that, or of
course both (64-bit multi-core), they were dead.
A workstation wasn't really a type of PC. They exceeded PCs in
specification, in performance, in price, and in sophistication of the
OS... and when PCs caught up, they obliterated workstations because
workstations also exceeded PCs in price by, as I said, at least an
additional zero.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
6 Jun
6 Jun
4:10 a.m.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 3:25 PM Liam Proven via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
If a device is not a microcomputer, it then must be either a
minicomputer or a mainframe. Early on many mainframes didn't even
support interactive sessions so they more or less disqualified
themselves from being "personal" in any commonly-understood sense.
Disagree. Someone has to give it input to get output, and that can be one
person using the mainframe by themselves. So again, this kind of "
description" still does not cut it.
Which leaves minicomputers.
A single-user desktop (or deskside) minicomputer isn't a personal
computer, because it's not a microcomputer. (And it costs as much as a
car.) Then what is it? What do you call a single-user minicomputer?
Where has it been established/agreed/decreed that "personal computer" =
"microcomputer" + some other traits? The attempt to frame the term in
economic respects just does not work. People in the 70s could and did buy
refurbished minicomputers for their personal use, and in a timeframe in
which they were still be considered contemporary and not "obsolete".
The other, often overlooked category: it's a workstation.
Workstations, for as long as they existed, were personal computer
_like_ devices but typically an order of magnitude more powerful and
an order of magnitude more expensive. They also generally ran what ben
mononym calls a proper OS.
Workstations existed before microcomputers and before personal
computers, and continued happily existing for about 30 more years, but
by the time of 32-bit high-performance PCs with grown-up OSs, they
were teetering, and by the time of commodity _64-bit_ PCs, or
multiprocessor/multicore PCs with OSes that could use that, or of
course both (64-bit multi-core), they were dead.
...
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Why don't we just use the term "workstation" to describe all
microcomputers
used personally then, which is all of them? The difference in scale of
performance, memory, disk storage, etc. isn't much of a distinction, since
they're both used in a "personal" sense.
But don't worry, I am here to finally solve this riddle:
Consider: if you share a bathroom with the public where other people can
walk in while you're doing your business and do theirs, it's not your
*personal* bathroom. If you ride a bus, where multiple random people get
on and off at various stops, it's not a "personal" conveyance. If you use
a computer that simultaneously is or can be used by other people via
multiple concurrent user sessions across whatever signal path, whatever the
setting, it is *not* "personal". If you own and use a computer by
yourself, and use it singularly (or others do so when you are not), then in
fact, by definition, it is *personal*. Do you see? The opposite of
personal is multi-user. There is your dichotomy. It is either personal,
or multiuser, and never the twain shall meet, and neither anything betwixt.
I submit that this is the actual historical context of the original meaning
of the term "personal computer".
I REST MY CASE.
Sellam
12:38 p.m.
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 05:10, Sellam Abraham via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
If you ride a bus, where multiple random people get
on and off at various stops, it's not a "personal" conveyance.
I refute your argument thus:
If you buy a bus and start driving it yourself everywhere, for your
own exclusive use, it doesn't somehow magically stop being a bus. It's
still a bus, just a bus being used for personal transport.
Stephen Fry, the actor and writer, is quite tall. 6'5". He drives a
London black cab as his personal car.
It's his car, but it's not _a_ car. It's still a taxi cab: a
purpose-built 6-seat vehicle.
(I am 6'2" but I get why. I can't see out of the windscreen of a
Citroen 2CV: its top is lower than my chin. I have ridden NYC yellow
cabs, huge saloon cars with a partition shoved in behind the front
seats. I don't fit in the back. It's really painful. This is why
purpose-built vehicles for lots of people and a driver in their own
compartment exist, and it's very American to ignore them and try to
crowbar some other, unsuitable tool into the role because the better
device was Not Invented Here.)
A personal computer is not any random computer used by a single
person. It's a product category, like "car" as opposed to "train"
or
"bus".
Some rich people can buy their own helicopter and use them to go where
they want. (Flown by a professional because flying a helicopter is
like rubbing your stomach and patting your head while walking a
tightrope.) That does not make that helicopter into a car.
A workstation was, essentially, a minicomputer built to be a
single-user device, but cost as much as a room full of terminals or
micros. It's not the same thing.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
1:11 p.m.
I refute your refutations thusly:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024, 5:38 AM Liam Proven via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 05:10, Sellam Abraham via
cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Ah! You said it: "personal". So, agreed.
Stephen Fry, the actor and writer, is quite tall. 6'5". He drives a
If you ride a bus, where multiple random people
get
on and off at various stops, it's not a "personal" conveyance.
I refute your argument thus:
If you buy a bus and start driving it yourself everywhere, for your
own exclusive use, it doesn't somehow magically stop being a bus. It's
still a bus, just a bus being used for personal transport.
London black cab as his personal car.
There it is again: "personal".
It's his car, but it's not _a_ car. It's still a taxi cab: a purpose-built
6-seat vehicle.
Agreed, and still used...personally.
(I am 6'2" but I get why. I can't see out of the windscreen of a
Citroen 2CV: its top is lower than my chin. I have
ridden NYC yellow
cabs, huge saloon cars with a partition shoved in behind the front
seats. I don't fit in the back. It's really painful. This is why
purpose-built vehicles for lots of people and a driver in their own
compartment exist, and it's very American to ignore them and try to
crowbar some other, unsuitable tool into the role because the better
device was Not Invented Here.)
Your height advantage does not an argument make.
A personal computer is not any random computer used by a single
person. It's a product category, like
"car" as opposed to "train" or
"bus".
Now you're back in the marketing camp, where booze, coke, and sales are the
controlling factors. Marketers make good slogans but bad engineers.
Some rich people can buy their own helicopter and use them to go where
they want. (Flown by a professional because flying a
helicopter is
like rubbing your stomach and patting your head while walking a
tightrope.) That does not make that helicopter into a car.
Who is trying to argue a helicopter is a car? You are.
If I own a computer that I use personally and invite my friend over to play
a game on it, does that cease to make it personal? If I buy it for my
secretary to use on my behalf, does that cease to make it personal (since
it is still just one person--her--using it)?
If I let you drive or fly me around in my personal car or helicopter
(respectively), I'm just letting you use it when I'm not. If I
occasionally use my personal bus that I drive myself around in for roving
parties involving a group of my friends (or even random strangers I invite
on, why not) then it doesn't cease to become personal, same as Stephen Fry
can occasionally take on a passenger in his taxi cab if he feels like it,
just like I can occasionally use my personal computer to perform tasks for
others.
In all cases, the primary use is still personal: one person is
driving/flying at one time. Two people trying to simultaneously drive a car
or fly a helicopter would be awkward, to say the least, especially when one
person wants to go left and the other wants to fly higher.
A workstation was, essentially, a minicomputer built to be a
single-user device, but cost as much as a room full of
terminals or
micros. It's not the same thing.
Ok, now you're back to cost. Your criteria keep changing. You cannot
give something meaning when the "something" keeps changing. This is why
you are refuted.
I refute you, sir!
Sellam
1:19 p.m.
Ok, now you're back to cost. Your criteria keep changing. You cannot
give something meaning when the "something" keeps changing. This is why
you are refuted.
I refute you, sir!
Sellam,
There's "personal computing" as a verb and "personal computer" as
an object
classification. These are distinct terms. Using a UNIVAC 1 for personal
computing purposes does not make the UNIVAC 1 a personal computer in so far
as the UNIVAC 1 was not originally classified (such as with the patent
office) as a device intended for the express purpose of personal computing,
as defined as blah blah blah.
One could argue that the manufacturer as the right to declare what is and
is not the intended personal use of the thing they're manufacturing, as
represented by the manuals, promotions and marketing, training, etc.
So, I think really it's possible to declare anything a personal computer or
not a personal computer if you have some sort of base definitions for these
things. I think that's the problem we're having, the terms "personal
computer" and personal computing are not really dictionary words.
Bill
1:35 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024, 6:19 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
> Ok, now you're back to cost. Your criteria keep changing. You cannot
> give something meaning when the "something" keeps changing. This is why
> you are refuted.
> I refute you, sir!
> Sellam
There's "personal computing" as a verb and "personal computer" as
an object
classification. These are distinct terms. Using a
UNIVAC 1 for personal
computing purposes does not make the UNIVAC 1 a personal computer in so far
as the UNIVAC 1 was not originally classified (such as with the patent
office) as a device intended for the express purpose of personal computing,
as defined as blah blah blah.
There were no classifications of computers when the UNIVAC was built. They
were just "computers" (spoken in the old-timey news voice). Personal use
did not and could not have even been considered until there was 30 more
years of development to bring costs and size down to make them ubiquitous,
for comparisons to begin to be made so categories could be invented by
marketers, and computers categorized into various classifications. But
none of that matters because it comes down to how they're used.
One could argue that the manufacturer as the right to declare what is and
is not the intended personal use of the thing
they're manufacturing, as
represented by the manuals, promotions and marketing, training, etc.
And it is the right of the buyer to use that product in any way they want,
including personally.
So, I think really it's possible to declare anything a personal computer or
not a personal computer if you have some sort of base
definitions for these
things. I think that's the problem we're having, the terms "personal
computer" and personal computing are not really dictionary words.
Bill
Go back to what I said about the context in which the term was used: at the
time, "computers" were primarily a multi-user, time-sharing affair. To
have a computer for one's own exclusive use is what made it personal, and
that's what Ed Roberts had in mind when he implemented the term.
So you are also refuted. I refute you!
Anyone else, before I clear the board of all the pieces, declare myself
winner, and go home?
Sellam
7 Jun
7 Jun
3:19 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 1:38 PM Liam Proven via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
If you buy a bus and start driving it yourself
everywhere, for your
own exclusive use, it doesn't somehow magically stop being a bus. It's
still a bus, just a bus being used for personal transport.
I am not so sure...
After all 'bus' is a contraction of 'omnibus' which, according to
Flanders and Swann means 'To or for, by with or from everybody'. More
seriosly, a bus is a vehicle that anyone may travel on.
I know a couple of people who own old London buses. They tell me that
you need a different driving licence (and probably insurance) if you
carry fare-paying passengers. They can drive their vehcles to classic
car shows etc. They can carry people for free (at said person's own
risk). But they can't charge fares. Said vehicles remain Routemasters,
Regents,etc but may well legally not be buses.
Incidentally, a neighbour asked me for comments on a question which
had appeared on the 'Reader's Questions' page of a UK national
newspaper :
'Which was the first handheld computer?'
My thoughts are :
Balancing a PDP11/05 on one hand and operating the front panel with
the other doesn't count :-)
It has to be able to run a user program. So non-programmable
calculators, Curtas, slide rules, etc don't count.
If it has to run what is normally accepted as a computer programming
language and handle text then something like the Sharp PC1210 or
PC1211 would seem t be a reasonable answer.
If machines that only handle numbers count, then a reasonable answer
is the Sumlock 324, which pre-dates the HP65 by a couple of weeks.
-tony
3:23 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 5:10 AM Sellam Abraham via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
The opposite of
personal is multi-user. There is your dichotomy. It is either personal,
or multiuser, and never the twain shall meet, and neither anything betwixt.
By that definition the TRS-80 Color Computer is not a personal
computer (it could run OS-9)
Neither is the IBM 5150 'Personal Computer' as it could run Minix
-tony
3:29 p.m.
Still valid?
Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
question: "What was the first PC?"
http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:24 AM Tony Duell via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 5:10 AM Sellam Abraham via
cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
The opposite of
personal is multi-user. There is your dichotomy. It is either personal,
or multiuser, and never the twain shall meet, and neither anything
betwixt.
By that definition the TRS-80 Color Computer is not a personal
computer (it could run OS-9)
Neither is the IBM 5150 'Personal Computer' as it could run Minix
-tony
3:56 p.m.
Wow! How truly interesting. Back then I guess one could call it a
personal/micro-computer -Simon 1949. This was early digital age where
mechanical devices ruled. Not my idea of a modern PC.
Nonetheless, the quiz gives more information than what is found in books on
the subject.
Happy computing - modern fashion!
Murray 😊
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:29 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Still valid?
Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
question: "What was the first PC?"
http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:24 AM Tony Duell via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 5:10 AM Sellam Abraham via
cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> The opposite of
> personal is multi-user. There is your dichotomy. It is either
personal,
or
multiuser, and never the twain shall meet, and neither anything
betwixt.
By that definition the TRS-80 Color Computer is not a personal
computer (it could run OS-9)
Neither is the IBM 5150 'Personal Computer' as it could run Minix
-tony
4:39 p.m.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:29 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Still valid?
Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
question: "What was the first PC?"
http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml
That's Doug Salot's old website circa 2000. He did an admirable job back
then for what we all collectively knew (he didn't just pull this stuff out
of his arse, he actually did some research).
Sellam
6 p.m.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 12:39 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:29 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk
<
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
Yes I mean, how well did this page / research age? For example I have
elsewhere made the case that the NRI 832 pre-dates the Kenbak and I made
the case as well that yes is a personal computer. The LGP-30 is totally
missing. Olivetti 101, Etc.
Still valid?
Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
question: "What was the first PC?"
http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml
That's Doug Salot's old website circa 2000. He did an admirable job back
then for what we all collectively knew (he didn't just pull this stuff out
of his arse, he actually did some research).
Sellam
7:31 p.m.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 11:01 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 12:39 PM Sellam Abraham via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I don't know that we (collectively) knew about the LGP-30 back then. The
Olivetti, maybe. Remember, he made that website back when the Internet was
about as searchable as it is today (i.e. not that great) to say nothing of
the fact that not that many computer history/collector websites were out
there back then.
Sellam
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:29 AM Bill Degnan via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
out
Still valid?
Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
question: "What was the first PC?"
http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml
That's Doug Salot's old website circa 2000. He did an admirable job back
then for what we all collectively knew (he didn't just pull this stuff
of his arse, he actually did some research).
Sellam
Yes I mean, how well did this page / research age? For example I have
elsewhere made the case that the NRI 832 pre-dates the Kenbak and I made
the case as well that yes is a personal computer. The LGP-30 is totally
missing. Olivetti 101, Etc.
7:34 p.m.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 3:31 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 11:01 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk
<
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
I don't know that we (collectively) knew about the LGP-30 back then. The
Olivetti, maybe. Remember, he made that website back when the Internet was
about as searchable as it is today (i.e. not that great) to say nothing of
the fact that not that many computer history/collector websites were out
there back then.
Sellam
So you're saying it has aged, new facts have crept in to make this site
look dated.
B
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 12:39 PM Sellam Abraham via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:29 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <
> cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
> wrote:
> > Still valid?
> > Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
> > question: "What was the first PC?"
> > http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml
> That's Doug Salot's old website circa 2000. He did an admirable job
back
then for
what we all collectively knew (he didn't just pull this stuff
out
of his arse, he actually did some research).
Sellam
Yes I mean, how well did this page / research age? For example I have
elsewhere made the case that the NRI 832 pre-dates the Kenbak and I made
the case as well that yes is a personal computer. The LGP-30 is totally
missing. Olivetti 101, Etc.
8 Jun
8 Jun
1:19 a.m.
On 6/7/24 10:29, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
Still valid?
Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
question: "What was the first PC?"
http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml
OK, I have to chime in here. I worked for Artronix about
1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in
biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people involved
with it later moved to Washington University in St. Louis.
The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some features
such a a crude memory mapping unit and more memory, and
called this the Programmed Console, so as not to scare
people away. Artronix began building these PC's and selling
them to hospitals for radiation therapy planning. I have no
idea how many were sold. They were built into a desk, and
used 7400-series logic chips. They etched their own PC
boards, drilled them by hand and soldered in the chips by
hand. I wrote a series of diagnostics for them.
Jon
1:42 a.m.
On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
OK, I have to chime in here. I worked for Artronix
about 1972. The LINC
computer was developed at MIT for use in biomedical research labs, and a
bunch of people involved with it later moved to Washington University in
St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some features
such a a crude memory mapping unit and more memory, and called this the
Programmed Console, so as not to scare people away. Artronix began
building these PC's and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy
planning. I have no idea how many were sold. They were built into a
desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They etched their own PC
boards, drilled them by hand and soldered in the chips by hand. I wrote
a series of diagnostics for them.
Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one.
Vince
2:43 p.m.
On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:
On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
An Artronix PC? I seriously doubt it, but it is possible.
There is at least one LINC that was restored about a decade
ago, and taken out to VCF 10. If an Artronix PC did evade
the scrapper, it would not be that hard to get it running again.
Jon
OK, I have to chime in here. I worked for
Artronix about
1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in
biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people involved
with it later moved to Washington University in St.
Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some
features such a a crude memory mapping unit and more
memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not
to scare people away. Artronix began building these PC's
and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy
planning. I have no idea how many were sold. They were
built into a desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They
etched their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and
soldered in the chips by hand. I wrote a series of
diagnostics for them.
Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one.
4:56 p.m.
On 6/8/2024 7:43 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:
Even maintenance drawings would be great.
Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, but so would
MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software would be useful, but it would
still be of historic interest.
Thanks,
Vince
On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
An Artronix PC? I seriously doubt it, but it is possible. There is at
least one LINC that was restored about a decade ago, and taken out to
VCF 10. If an Artronix PC did evade the scrapper, it would not be that
hard to get it running again. OK, I have to chime in here. I worked for
Artronix about 1972. The
LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in biomedical research
labs, and a bunch of people involved with it later moved to
Washington University in St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there
later added some features such a a crude memory mapping unit and more
memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not to scare
people away. Artronix began building these PC's and selling them to
hospitals for radiation therapy planning. I have no idea how many
were sold. They were built into a desk, and used 7400-series logic
chips. They etched their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and
soldered in the chips by hand. I wrote a series of diagnostics for
them.
Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one.
5:33 p.m.
On 6/8/24 11:56, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:
On 6/8/2024 7:43 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
Well, I believe that LINC LAP-6 will "boot" on an Artronix
PC. I am fairly sure I did try that a long time ago.
And, the guys who resurrected the LINC for the VCF demo did
have LAP-6 running. One big feature of the Artronix PC was
a TEK storage scope that allowed you to see a whole page of
text at a time, instead of the tiny window that was
available on the LINC. I think the LINC could only support
about 8 or 12 short lines due to the slow refresh.
Jon
On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk
wrote:
Even maintenance drawings would be great.
Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, but
so would MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software would be
useful, but it would still be of historic interest. On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
An Artronix PC? I seriously doubt it, but it is
possible. There is at least one LINC that was restored
about a decade ago, and taken out to VCF 10. If an
Artronix PC did evade the scrapper, it would not be that
hard to get it running again. OK, I have to chime in here. I worked for
Artronix
about 1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for
use in biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people
involved with it later moved to Washington University
in St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later
added some features such a a crude memory mapping unit
and more memory, and called this the Programmed
Console, so as not to scare people away. Artronix
began building these PC's and selling them to hospitals
for radiation therapy planning. I have no idea how
many were sold. They were built into a desk, and used
7400-series logic chips. They etched their own PC
boards, drilled them by hand and soldered in the chips
by hand. I wrote a series of diagnostics for them.
Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one.
8:17 p.m.
On 6/8/24 12:33, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
On 6/8/24 11:56, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:
I'll ask Al Weber if he has anything. I know unless it's PC sized he
doesn't have it. He has a lot of RS6000 stuff I need to pick up and
Victor. I think he did a give away of a lot of his documentation about
5 years ago, so he may have given it away if he had it.
thanks
Jim
On 6/8/2024 7:43 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
Well, I believe that LINC LAP-6 will "boot" on an Artronix PC. I am
fairly sure I did try that a long time ago.
And, the guys who resurrected the LINC for the VCF demo did have LAP-6
running. One big feature of the Artronix PC was a TEK storage scope
that allowed you to see a whole page of text at a time, instead of the
tiny window that was available on the LINC. I think the LINC could
only support about 8 or 12 short lines due to the slow refresh.
Jon
On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk
wrote:
Even maintenance drawings would be great.
Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, but so would
MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software would be useful, but it would
still be of historic interest. On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
> OK, I have to chime in here. I worked for Artronix about 1972.
> The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in biomedical
> research labs, and a bunch of people involved with it later moved
> to Washington University in St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab
> there later added some features such a a crude memory mapping unit
> and more memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not
> to scare people away. Artronix began building these PC's and
> selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy planning. I have
> no idea how many were sold. They were built into a desk, and used
> 7400-series logic chips. They etched their own PC boards, drilled
> them by hand and soldered in the chips by hand. I wrote a series
> of diagnostics for them.
Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one.
An Artronix PC? I seriously doubt it, but it is possible. There is
at least one LINC that was restored about a decade ago, and taken
out to VCF 10. If an Artronix PC did evade the scrapper, it would
not be that hard to get it running again.
8:23 p.m.
New subject: Artonix PC (was Re: Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s))
On 6/8/2024 1:17 PM, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:
On 6/8/24 12:33, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
Thanks!
Vince
On 6/8/24 11:56, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk
wrote:
I'll ask Al Weber if he has anything. I know unless it's PC sized he
doesn't have it. He has a lot of RS6000 stuff I need to pick up and
Victor. I think he did a give away of a lot of his documentation about
5 years ago, so he may have given it away if he had it.
thanks
Jim Even maintenance drawings would be great.
Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, but so would
MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software would be useful, but it would
still be of historic interest.
Well, I believe that LINC LAP-6 will "boot" on an Artronix PC. I am
fairly sure I did try that a long time ago.
And, the guys who resurrected the LINC for the VCF demo did have LAP-6
running. One big feature of the Artronix PC was a TEK storage scope
that allowed you to see a whole page of text at a time, instead of the
tiny window that was available on the LINC. I think the LINC could
only support about 8 or 12 short lines due to the slow refresh.
Jon
9 Jun
9 Jun
12:50 a.m.
On 6/8/24 15:17, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:
On 6/8/24 12:33, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
The Artronix PC CPU box was about an 18" cube, but then
there was the console and LINCtape drives, which were each
rack-mount boxes about 9" high.
Jon
On 6/8/24 11:56, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk
wrote:
I'll ask Al Weber if he has anything. I know unless it's
PC sized he doesn't have it. He has a lot of RS6000 stuff
I need to pick up and Victor. I think he did a give away
of a lot of his documentation about 5 years ago, so he may
have given it away if he had it.
thanks
Jim
On 6/8/2024 7:43 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk
wrote:
Well, I believe that LINC LAP-6 will "boot" on an
Artronix PC. I am fairly sure I did try that a long time
ago.
And, the guys who resurrected the LINC for the VCF demo
did have LAP-6 running. One big feature of the Artronix
PC was a TEK storage scope that allowed you to see a
whole page of text at a time, instead of the tiny window
that was available on the LINC. I think the LINC could
only support about 8 or 12 short lines due to the slow
refresh.
Jon
On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk
wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
>> OK, I have to chime in here. I worked for Artronix
>> about 1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT
>> for use in biomedical research labs, and a bunch of
>> people involved with it later moved to Washington
>> University in St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab
>> there later added some features such a a crude memory
>> mapping unit and more memory, and called this the
>> Programmed Console, so as not to scare people away.
>> Artronix began building these PC's and selling them
>> to hospitals for radiation therapy planning. I have
>> no idea how many were sold. They were built into a
>> desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They etched
>> their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and
>> soldered in the chips by hand. I wrote a series of
>> diagnostics for them.
>
> Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one.
An Artronix PC? I seriously doubt it, but it is
possible. There is at least one LINC that was restored
about a decade ago, and taken out to VCF 10. If an
Artronix PC did evade the scrapper, it would not be
that hard to get it running again.
Even maintenance drawings would be great.
Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool,
but so would MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software
would be useful, but it would still be of historic
interest.
1:32 a.m.
Liebe Leser, after consigning most of this thread to the bit bucket over
the last week or more, I find myself in the position of trying to figure
out what the latest posts have to do with 'Experience using an Altair
8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)'. Indeed, it seems that much of the
thread has been filled with replies having nothing at all to do with the
MITS 8800.
Please, someone--either kill the thread or start a new one that has
content relative to the thread title.
Thanks,
Chuck
2:02 a.m.
Please kill it.
It's a marketing term, defined to suit the needs of the moment.
Even if we ever define it to our satisfaction, nobody else will ever use
that definition.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 2:32 AM Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Liebe Leser, after consigning most of this thread to the bit bucket over
the last week or more, I find myself in the position of trying to figure
out what the latest posts have to do with 'Experience using an Altair
8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)'. Indeed, it seems that much of the
thread has been filled with replies having nothing at all to do with the
MITS 8800.
Please, someone--either kill the thread or start a new one that has
content relative to the thread title.
Thanks,
Chuck
11 Jun
11 Jun
9:02 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
I find myself in the position of trying to figure
out what the latest posts have to do with 'Experience using an Altair
8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)'.
Thanks! It's gotten so off-topic, I've all but stopped following this thread.
I recently found a new home for my Altair, and in doing so, I set it up and
run it to show it working. This reminded me of my Altair emulation I wrote
back around 2003 when I decided not to maintain the Altair in a "ready to go"
state and packed it away.
This is more than a "pretty picture" Altair Front Panel emulator, it gives a
pretty accurate emulation of my complete system which includes:
Hardware:
Mits: Front panel, 8080 CPU, 88-SIO serial
CDC: 64k Dynamic RAM
NorthStar: MDS-A1 floppy controlle
Compu/Time: CT-102 Real Time clock
Homebuilt: Dual serial
Lear Seigler: ADM3A terminal
Sugart: two SA-400 drives
It also contains .NSI (NorthStarImage)s with a fair bit of usable software
including (but not limited to - there's more - this was my working system
at the time)"
Bootable:
NorthStar DOS 5.1
My own DMF (one of the first OS's I wrote)
Fig-Forth system
Application software:
North Star BASIC
Byte Shop of Westminster XEK Editor/Assembler/Disassembler
MicroStuf RCONS/CBBS
Altair Memory test
My own BASIC
My own ALPS (Assembly Language Programming System)
Games:
Dynacomp Chess Master
Dynacomp Valdez Supertanker simulation
Cranston Manor Adventure
Hunt The Wumpus & many other simple games of the time
No longer having mu own Altair, I've made some minor enhancements to the
"Virtual Altair" and posted about it - just in case anyone would like to
experience actually RUNNING/USING a 70's Altair system!
This was mostly a cut/paste of a posting I had made in a different forum, and
included a bit of information (not needed here:-) about "What is an Altair"
which happened to include a quote from correspondance to me by "Ed Roberts"
which said
"We coined the phrase Personal Computer and it was first applied to the
Altair, i.e., by definition the first personal computer." ...
"The beginning of the personal computer industry started without question
at MITS with the Altair."
and a couple reasons I do think that this is a fairly reasonable statement!
This (or course) sparked the never-ending controversy of "what is a personal
computer" and "which was the earliest"...
My own interest in classic computing has always been about "Historical,
Technology" - it always seems odd (to me) how many others seems to be more
concerned with "Terminology"
To me a "personal computer" is one "anyone could have and you might find
in
someone's home" - There are of course plenty of pre-Altair systems that could
fit in someones home, and "someone could have had" - but not at all common in
such and environment. I do think the Jan 75 issue of Popular Electronics
help a lot to get the Altair into such a environment.
And it was made less-clear by IBM's choice to name the 5150 the "Personal
Computer" (which made sense for them - prior to that most of their offerings
were large time-sharing mainframes!)
FWIW, my own "first personal computer" was NOT the Altair - my first ever was
a "COSMAC ELF" - it's been so long a don't remember much about it (and I
got
rid of it before I started "Daves Old Computers") - IIRC is was an 1802
CPU, with a key-keypad - it DID have a "video display" but not character
based (just dots) - it has 256 bytes of memory which was ALL the memory in
the system (so you had to "see your program code on the screen"), and NO
storage (you always had to key in your program code).
This was very limited, and I soon replaced it with various homebuilt (mostly
8080 based) systems - at one point I managed to obtain some solenoid controller
reel-to-reel tape drives from a decomissioned lab - and built my own automatic
storage system (using some direct digital-to-tape methods I managed to get
working).
But the Altair was the first system I had with floppy disks and substantial
memory - and the first I could use for the kinds of things I had been doing
on the universities IBM 360 and PDP-11s - in other words a usable personal
computer!
Dave
12 Jun
12 Jun
4:54 a.m.
On 6/11/24 02:02, Dave Dunfield via cctalk wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
I never expanded my 8800 beyond the original 4-slot kit with
limp-wristed power supply. The construction (I built from the kit) I
found to be appalling. More than once I zinged myself brushing against
the line voltage traces on the front panel board. And that awful white
wire. A couple of years later, I used an Imsai 8080 and was more
favorably impressed.
My first disk system was an Integrand S100 box with a power supply
suitable for arc-welding that even came with the blueline prints for the
construction (now hopelessly faded). I used Don Tarbell's controller
and some Calcomp drives. After one of the drives failed, I got a couple
of Siemens FDD-100 drives that probably still operate.
At any rate, the Altair and the Integrand with its disk box sit on a
shelf in a dusty corner of my workshop. I suspect that the capacitors
in the Altair have long dried out. Still have no idea what to do with
all that heavy iron--I haven't touched it in perhaps 40 years. I
congratulate you in finding homes for yours--I doubt that will happen
with mine.
--Chuck
I find myself in the position of trying to
figure
out what the latest posts have to do with 'Experience using an Altair
8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)'.
Thanks! It's gotten so off-topic, I've all but stopped following this thread.
I recently found a new home for my Altair, and in doing so, I set it up and
run it to show it working. This reminded me of my Altair emulation I wrote
back around 2003 when I decided not to maintain the Altair in a "ready to go"
state and packed it away.
12:41 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, 9:54 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Still have no idea what to do with
all that heavy iron--I haven't touched it in perhaps 40 years. I
congratulate you in finding homes for yours--I doubt that will happen
with mine.
--Chuck
eBay. Make some retirement cash.
Sellam
2:14 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
I never expanded my 8800 beyond the original 4-slot
kit with
limp-wristed power supply. The construction (I built from the kit) I
found to be appalling. More than once I zinged myself brushing against
the line voltage traces on the front panel board. And that awful white
wire.
Mine was "used" and already assembled when I got it.
It had most of the final expansions - I added a few homebrew ones.
Did improve the power supply , and agree completely on the "white wire"
- I used mine LOTS - did much of my earliest software development on it!
-Dave
2:07 p.m.
Having some fun reliving the memories ... I'll also mention that I do have other
emulators for some
of the classic systems I had on "Daves Old Computers" (look under "DOS
Widgets")
again - in case anyone wants to experience actually using one of these systems:
NorthStar Horizon (Z80) - also does: Vector 1+
NorthStar DOS, CP/M
Heathkit H8 (8080)
Hdos, CP/M
Mil MOD8 (8008) - Canadian
Scelbi BASIC
Dunfield 6809 (6809) [my original portable]
My own CUBIX OS
There's more software - these are the main OS's and significant
-Dave
2:14 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:07 AM Dave Dunfield via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Having some fun reliving the memories ... I'll
also mention that I do have
other emulators for some
of the classic systems I had on "Daves Old Computers" (look under "DOS
Widgets")
again - in case anyone wants to experience actually using one of these
systems:
NorthStar Horizon (Z80) - also does: Vector 1+
NorthStar DOS, CP/M
Without looking through everything you have first (sorry)....is the
NorthStar DOS genned for a 2SIO card?
Bill
7:09 p.m.
Bill Degnan wrote:
Most of the disk images I have in the Altair emulation are set up to communicate via my
own homebuilt
dual-serial card - There might be one set up for the original Mits serial card...
The ones with the Horizon emulation are set up for the serial ports build into the
Horizon,
and the Vector 1+ images are set up for whatever I had in that machine.
There is a an image of the NorthStar master system distribution disk - which has
"unpersonalised
I/O" this is what was first used to get it running on the Altair - it boots and hangs
in an infinite loop
at I/O initialization - you halt the system and then toggle in minimal I/O functions
functions through
the front panel - then you can restart DOS and get a console prompt, at which point you
can load
"fresh" DOS elsewhere in memory, then using the NorthStar monitor, poke in your
I/O routines,
then IN(itialize) a fresh disk and save that DOS to it - thereby creating a bootable disk
that "talks to
the console".
This is one of things you can do on the "Virtual Altair", do/experience what it
was was involved
in getting an OS up on a front-panel system when you didn't already have this OS
running!
Something you had to do in the first days, but few people today have done! (other then
list members or course)
I do have information about how to do this included with the emulater!
-Dave
Without
looking through everything you have first (sorry)....is the
NorthStar DOS genned
for a 2SIO card?
Bill
7:15 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 3:09 PM Dave Dunfield via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Bill Degnan wrote:
Most of the disk images I have in the Altair emulation are set up to
communicate via my own homebuilt
dual-serial card - There might be one set up for the original Mits serial
card...
The ones with the Horizon emulation are set up for the serial ports build
into the Horizon,
and the Vector 1+ images are set up for whatever I had in that machine.
There is a an image of the NorthStar master system distribution disk -
which has "unpersonalised
I/O" this is what was first used to get it running on the Altair - it
boots and hangs in an infinite loop
at I/O initialization - you halt the system and then toggle in minimal I/O
functions functions through
the front panel - then you can restart DOS and get a console prompt, at
which point you can load
"fresh" DOS elsewhere in memory, then using the NorthStar monitor, poke in
your I/O routines,
then IN(itialize) a fresh disk and save that DOS to it - thereby creating
a bootable disk that "talks to
the console".
This is one of things you can do on the "Virtual Altair", do/experience
what it was was involved
in getting an OS up on a front-panel system when you didn't already have
this OS running!
Something you had to do in the first days, but few people today have done!
(other then list members or course)
I do have information about how to do this included with the emulater!
-Dave
Thanks Dave - It has been many years since I genned a N* disk. I don't
always have success with the port assigning but eventually I get it to work.
Bill
Without
looking through everything you have first (sorry)....is the
NorthStar DOS genned for a 2SIO card?
Bill
13 Jun
13 Jun
10:51 a.m.
Bill Degnan wrote:
Thanks Dave - It has been many years since I genned a
N* disk. I don't
always have success with the port assigning but eventually I get it to work.
Although my Altair was "fully expanded" when I first owned it, I was involved
with it quite some time before that:
At University of New Brunswick I made friend: Gary -staff at computer center
Gary found: Dan -former student -built the Altair -Decided to sell to Gary
-- Dan had assembled a minimal system: Chassis, all Mits: CPU, 1K RAM, Serial
-- Fortunately he had put in 3 of the 4-slot S100 boards (12 slots)
Together Gary and I expanded it to a much more usable system
--- 64K RAM, NorthStar Disks, ADM3A terminal and more
I wrote an 8080 assembler on UNBs IBM 360 mainframe, which gave a good listing
(code values) of our I/O routines. Using front panel: Run at E900 (Boot ROM -
unpersonalized N*DOS), HALT, toggle-in I/O code, restart DOS in memory.
This gave DOS talking to the ADM3A (yes - it took a few trys before we had it
working) - then we loaded clean DOS into memory (DOS self-modifies in memory
as it boots), use N*Monitor to copy our I/O to this copy, initialize
a second disk and save DOS to it - this gave us a working DOS that booted!
If you want to experience doing this, it can all be done on my Virtual Altair!
For the true experience, you should stick to the front panel switches, but if
you want to "cheat" - Virtual Altair has additional capabilities that original
didn't: Full debugger with execution (disassembly) display, memory/register
editors, 'L'oad Intel/Motorola hex images to memory while stopped!
Sometime later, while testing bare code on a second Altair without disks, I
created: MinimalCodeEntrySerialBoot
This let me load/run large programs, having to toggle in only 18 bytes via
the front panel!
Ah, fond memories!
-Dave
9 Jun
9 Jun
1:52 a.m.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 7:43 AM Jon Elson via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:
Is it Artronix or Artronics, out of Plainfield, New Jersey (according to
the label, formally TechArt Systems 2000)? Because if the latter, I have
one right here, though I can't tell you the model number because it is not
displaying one. The serial number seems to indicate it was made in 1984.
Here's a link to an ad in PC World circa 1984 ==>
https://books.google.com/books?id=-C_xVnQCcsEC&pg=PA48&dq=artronics…
The LINC exhibited at VCF 10.0 was one of two systems the fine folks of the
Washington University team who originally designed and built the LINC
scraped together and got working in time for the Festival, and their
presentation therein. That system went with Bruce Damer to the DigiBarn
(Bruce was instrumental in putting together the presentation for VCF X) and
then a few years ago went off to the System Source Museum in Maryland. The
second backup/parts system went with me. I eventually sold my system* to a
private collector. Unfortunately, I never had a chance to do anything with
it.
Sellam
* When my collection was effectively stolen, the console was taken by the
scrappers but I retained the CPU cabinet. I eventually sold the CPU to the
private collector, and I more recently learned he was subsequently able to
recover the console from the said scrappers and reunite the parts to make
the system whole again. In any event, it was due some parts and much
effort to be made working.
On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk
wrote:
An Artronix PC? I seriously doubt it, but it is possible.
There is at least one LINC that was restored about a decade
ago, and taken out to VCF 10. If an Artronix PC did evade
the scrapper, it would not be that hard to get it running again.
Jon
OK, I have to chime in here. I worked for
Artronix about
1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in
biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people involved
with it later moved to Washington University in St.
Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some
features such a a crude memory mapping unit and more
memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not
to scare people away. Artronix began building these PC's
and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy
planning. I have no idea how many were sold. They were
built into a desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They
etched their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and
soldered in the chips by hand. I wrote a series of
diagnostics for them.
Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one.
3:06 p.m.
On 6/8/24 20:52, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
Is it Artronix or Artronics, out of Plainfield, New Jersey (according to
the label, formally TechArt Systems 2000)? Because if the latter, I have
one right here, though I can't tell you the model number because it is not
displaying one. The serial number seems to indicate it was made in 1984.
Artronix. They were manufacturing the computers in a
business park in St. Louis county, MO.
See :
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Artronix-PC-12-treatment-planning-c…
That has a pretty good picture of the console, tape drives
and desk, as well as the Tek 611 storage tube and hardcopy unit.
* When my collection was effectively stolen, the
console was taken by the
scrappers but I retained the CPU cabinet. I eventually sold the CPU to the
private collector, and I more recently learned he was subsequently able to
recover the console from the said scrappers and reunite the parts to make
the system whole again. In any event, it was due some parts and much
effort to be made working.
Wow, that's quite a story!
Jon
10 Jun
10 Jun
6:37 p.m.
The LINC exhibited at VCF 10.0 was one of two systems
the fine folks of
the
Washington University team who originally designed and
built the LINC
scraped together and got working in time for the Festival, and their
presentation therein. That system went with Bruce Damer to the DigiBarn
(Bruce was instrumental in putting together the presentation for VCF X)
and
then a few years ago went off to the System Source
Museum in Maryland.
I can confirm that it is still on active display at System Source. Although
a bit off topic, I think the readers of the list would be happy to hear it
is more or less still functional. The power supply required some work (caps
and some failed parts on a regulator card as figured out by Dave Gesswein)
as did the LINCtape drives (new bearings, tension adjustments on the
belts), and probably some other things I'm forgetting. Early this year it
was successfully brought into LAP6 and played a game of Pong for the first
time in years :) Unfortunately the LINCtapes themselves have degraded and
started not reliably reading, so it was decided to not mess with them any
further until they could be imaged. I'm not sure if they've made any
progress since - most of this was from my visit back in January.
Regards,
CJ
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 9:53 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 7:43 AM Jon Elson via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
> On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:
> > On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
> >> OK, I have to chime in here. I worked for Artronix about
> >> 1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in
> >> biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people involved
> >> with it later moved to Washington University in St.
> >> Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some
> >> features such a a crude memory mapping unit and more
> >> memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not
> >> to scare people away. Artronix began building these PC's
> >> and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy
> >> planning. I have no idea how many were sold. They were
> >> built into a desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They
> >> etched their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and
> >> soldered in the chips by hand. I wrote a series of
> >> diagnostics for them.
>
> > Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one.
> An Artronix PC? I seriously doubt it, but it is possible.
> There is at least one LINC that was restored about a decade
> ago, and taken out to VCF 10. If an Artronix PC did evade
> the scrapper, it would not be that hard to get it running again.
> Jon
Is it Artronix or Artronics, out of Plainfield, New Jersey (according to
the label, formally TechArt Systems 2000)? Because if the latter, I have
one right here, though I can't tell you the model number because it is not
displaying one. The serial number seems to indicate it was made in 1984.
Here's a link to an ad in PC World circa 1984 ==>
https://books.google.com/books?id=-C_xVnQCcsEC&pg=PA48&dq=artronics…
The LINC exhibited at VCF 10.0 was one of two systems the fine folks of the
Washington University team who originally designed and built the LINC
scraped together and got working in time for the Festival, and their
presentation therein. That system went with Bruce Damer to the DigiBarn
(Bruce was instrumental in putting together the presentation for VCF X) and
then a few years ago went off to the System Source Museum in Maryland. The
second backup/parts system went with me. I eventually sold my system* to a
private collector. Unfortunately, I never had a chance to do anything with
it.
Sellam
* When my collection was effectively stolen, the console was taken by the
scrappers but I retained the CPU cabinet. I eventually sold the CPU to the
private collector, and I more recently learned he was subsequently able to
recover the console from the said scrappers and reunite the parts to make
the system whole again. In any event, it was due some parts and much
effort to be made working.
17 Jun
17 Jun
7:31 a.m.
I got so busy the past couple weeks, I didn't get to chime in sooner :D
I did speak at VCF SW over this past weekend, on this topic related to the
first personal computer. I'm not the best of speakers, and it was limited
to an hour discussion. Jay will hopefully have the video recording up
before the end of this month, but he does have a lot of VCF talks to
process.
I'm sure I made some mistakes or misspoke on a few aspects, but hopefully I
didn't overly misrepresent anything. The approach I tried to take wasn't
really to answer what was "first" but to give a broader context on how
computers became "domesticated" in the form of "another home
appliance."
To me, "personal" was never really about the number of users - but more
about who bought the thing. So regardless of whatever it can do, if you
bought it, it's yours - and you can control and make decisions about its
usage. It's not limited to certain hours of the day for you to use, no
department chief dictates what types of processing is going on, etc.
Also when we say "personal computer", most are generally implicitly meaning
"home personal computer" -- since any business computer is generally owned
by the business, with (usually) restrictions on what you can do with it.
So by that criteria, to me, a computer costing more than a car doesn't
count as personal (relative to their initial retail advertised cost at the
year of release).
I'd also add that a "personal computer" also needs to be relocated by
yourself (as its owner). The weight or bulk criteria on that will be
subjective (since some people are super strong, or some people have
handicap where they hardly lift anything), But you should basically be
able to set up that computer on your own, and relocate it to a different
room on your own (maybe with a cart). i.e. this eliminates most "desk
sized" computers as a criteria.
None of my talk covers aspects like this - since, again, my focus was
highlighting that journey throughout the 1970s. I had really nearly 100
more slides to go through in the presentation, but it was time limited and
so I had to try to speed through some aspects. I'll have the full slide
deck in a VCF video description once they've proceed through it.
-Steve L (v*)
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:42 PM Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
OK, I have to chime in here. I worked for
Artronix about 1972. The LINC
computer was developed at MIT for use in biomedical research labs, and a
bunch of people involved with it later moved to Washington University in
St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some features
such a a crude memory mapping unit and more memory, and called this the
Programmed Console, so as not to scare people away. Artronix began
building these PC's and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy
planning. I have no idea how many were sold. They were built into a
desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They etched their own PC
boards, drilled them by hand and soldered in the chips by hand. I wrote
a series of diagnostics for them.
Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one.
Vince
12 Jun
12 Jun
6:44 p.m.
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 06:10, Sellam Abraham via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
If you use
a computer that simultaneously is or can be used by other people via
multiple concurrent user sessions across whatever signal path, whatever the
setting, it is *not* "personal".
I disagree. You are trying to make a binary yes/no split when it just ain't so.
Take, say, a Compaq Deskpro 386, a late-'80s desktop. It's indubitably a PC.
Now boot CDOS-386 on it. Plug a couple of terminals into its serial
ports. Now it's a multiuser host. No hardware change.
Stick a DOS floppy in, reboot. It's a single user PC again.
There is no hardware change. Ben Idontneedasurname says if it doesn't
have a multitasking OS it's not a PC.
Who is right?
Neither of you. You are trying to make out this is an absolute split. It's not.
I used DESQview to multitask DOS apps. Resolutely single user. I know
people who used DESQview to run BBSes. Definitely multiuser.
But the _same software_.
But could one ordinary person afford it? At least in some countries,
e.g. where it's made or at least designed? That is a clearer, easier
split, I think.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
5 Jun
5 Jun
1:03 p.m.
On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means
ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only
personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe.
To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal computer. The first
is what you say above, affordable by the masses. The second is "intended for"
the masses.
When the Jan 75 issue of Popular Electronics came out I was 9 years old. I didn't
know the magazine existed, nor could I have afforded a subscription if I did. But I knew
what computers were, and I knew I wanted one. But they were untouchable to me. I had
seen one at my dad's office, and even seen some programmers (up near the same category
as seeing an astronaut to me.) But having a computer was a dream, like owning an F-4
Phantom.
A couple of years later I saw the TRS-80 in a Radio Shack catalog. That was my first
sight of a "personal" computer. The price ($599?) was WELL outside what I could
afford, but it was achievable. AND... it was marketed toward "average" people!
Until I saw the TRS-80, owning a computer was a dream. After, it was a goal. I strongly
suspect that many people felt much the same way when they saw their own first personal
computer, whether it was a TRS-80 or an Altair or whatever. But very few had that
reaction to, say, A 9830. And the masses didn't get a flyer in the mail advertising a
5100 to them.
Just my 1/2 cent worth.
Will
Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for children to be
always and forever explaining things to them,
Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince
1:33 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general
purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the
masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine
was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing,
it's not a "personal computer"?
On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means
ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only
personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe.
To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal
computer. The first is what you say above, affordable by the masses. The
second is "intended for" the masses.
1:48 p.m.
On 6/5/2024 9:33 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general
purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the
masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine
was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing,
it's not a "personal computer"?
I think the term "personal computer" is impossible to define. Its
meaning will mean something different to just about anybody. Kinda
like "intelligence". Some accept IQ as a measurement. Some accept
membership in Mensa as a measure of very high IQ. I, on the other
hand, I see membership in Mensa a a factor requiring the subtraction
of at least 50 points from IQ because they were stupid enough to pay
someone for it. :-)
bill
On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means
ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only
personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe.
To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal
computer. The first is what you say above, affordable by the masses. The
second is "intended for" the masses.
9 Jun
9 Jun
2:21 a.m.
I believe the term was coined at PARC and was to distinguish between a time-sharing system
and a computer which was “yours” when you put your disk pack on it and sat in the room
where you were. Thus the Alto and Dorados were personal as they melded to their user, when
being used by that user, and then to the next user when the new pack was
installed. Time-sharing systems were pretty much not customizable and were certainly
shared.
..
--
Kenton A. Hoover
kenton(a)nemersonhoover.org
shibumi(a)mail.marchordie.org
+1 415 830 5843
On Jun 5, 2024 at 06:50 -0700, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>rg>,
wrote:
On 6/5/2024 9:33 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03 AM Will Cooke via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general
purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the
masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine
was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing,
it's not a "personal computer"?
I think the term "personal computer" is impossible to define. Its
meaning will mean something different to just about anybody. Kinda
like "intelligence". Some accept IQ as a measurement. Some accept
membership in Mensa as a measure of very high IQ. I, on the other
hand, I see membership in Mensa a a factor requiring the subtraction
of at least 50 points from IQ because they were stupid enough to pay
someone for it. :-)
bill
On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means
ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only
personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe.
To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal
computer. The first is what you say above, affordable by the masses. The
second is "intended for" the masses.
5 Jun
5 Jun
2:21 p.m.
On 06/05/2024 8:33 AM CDT Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
So if a computer was built to be used by a
single operator for general
purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the
masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine
was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing,
it's not a "personal computer"?
Yes.
For my own definition. I have no real interest if anyone agrees or disagrees. As I said,
"to my mind" and "my 1/2 cent worth." I think there is a difference
between a personal computer and a "Personal Computer." I only offer it in case
it is useful to someone else.
Will
Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for children to be
always and forever explaining things to them,
Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince
2:46 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 10:21 AM Will Cooke via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
Fair enough.
B
On 06/05/2024 8:33 AM CDT Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org wrote:
So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general
purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the
masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine
was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing,
it's not a "personal computer"?
Yes.
For my own definition. I have no real interest if anyone agrees or
disagrees. As I said, "to my mind" and "my 1/2 cent worth." I think
there
is a difference between a personal computer and a "Personal Computer." I
only offer it in case it is useful to someone else.
3:28 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 6:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
When the Jan 75 issue of Popular Electronics came out I was 9 years old.
I didn't know the magazine existed, nor could I have afforded a
subscription if I did. But I knew what computers were, and I knew I wanted
one. But they were untouchable to me. I had seen one at my dad's office,
and even seen some programmers (up near the same category as seeing an
astronaut to me.) But having a computer was a dream, like owning an F-4
Phantom.
A couple of years later I saw the TRS-80 in a Radio Shack catalog. That
was my first sight of a "personal" computer. The price ($599?) was WELL
outside what I could afford, but it was achievable. AND... it was marketed
toward "average" people!
So, now we're adding the age of the buyer as an element of what defines a
"personal" computer?
Sellam
3:30 p.m.
What I have taken away from this whole now weeks-long debate is this:
Everything is a personal computer; and nothing is.
Sellam
3:33 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 11:30 AM Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
What I have taken away from this whole now weeks-long
debate is this:
Everything is a personal computer; and nothing is.
Sellam
Then there is the question of personnel computing. Is this computer used
by an HR department?
3:45 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 8:34 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/plexus-p-75-68000-based-departmen…
Based on a Motorola 68020, definitely affordable at $500, and if you use it
by yourself then it's a personal computer. In addition, it rolls on
casters, so it's also portable! Buy it now before I lower the price again!
(Glad I was able to get some utility out of this thread after all 😄)
Sellam
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 11:30 AM Sellam Abraham via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I learned recently that the Plexus line of micro-mainframes (my term) were
dubbed "Departmental Computers".
Speaking of which, I have a Plexus P/75 Departmental Computer I'm selling
right now == What I have taken away from this whole now
weeks-long debate is this:
Everything is a personal computer; and nothing is.
Sellam
Then there is the question of personnel computing. Is this computer used
by an HR department?
4:24 p.m.
Sellam,
Adrian Black of Adrian's Digital Basement has a series on the Plexus
machines ongoing at the moment.
I'd highly suggest contacting him, as i'm sure he'd be very interested
in adding to his collection.
Josh Rice
On 05/06/2024 16:45, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 8:34 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 11:30 AM Sellam Abraham
via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I learned recently that the Plexus line of micro-mainframes (my term) were
dubbed "Departmental Computers".
Speaking of which, I have a Plexus P/75 Departmental Computer I'm selling
right now ==>
https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/plexus-p-75-68000-based-departmen…
Based on a Motorola 68020, definitely affordable at $500, and if you use it
by yourself then it's a personal computer. In addition, it rolls on
casters, so it's also portable! Buy it now before I lower the price again!
(Glad I was able to get some utility out of this thread after all 😄)
Sellam
What I have taken away from this whole now
weeks-long debate is this:
Everything is a personal computer; and nothing is.
Sellam
Then there is the question of personnel computing. Is this computer used
by an HR department?
4:52 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:25 AM Joshua Rice via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Sellam,
Adrian Black of Adrian's Digital Basement has a series on the Plexus
machines ongoing at the moment.
I'd highly suggest contacting him, as i'm sure he'd be very interested
in adding to his collection.
Josh Rice
Maybe, but I doubt it. Before his video came out I had no idea there was a
small tower model of the Plexus. This one is quite larger than anything
he's ever worked on, and I'm guessing it would be a great feat to get this
thing down into his basement.
Sellam
5:39 p.m.
On 2024-06-05 9:45 a.m., Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
I learned recently that the Plexus line of
micro-mainframes (my term) were
dubbed "Departmental Computers".
Speaking of which, I have a Plexus P/75 Departmental Computer I'm selling
right now ==>
https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/plexus-p-75-68000-based-departmen…
Based on a Motorola 68020, definitely affordable at $500, and if you use it
by yourself then it's a personal computer. In addition, it rolls on
casters, so it's also portable! Buy it now before I lower the price again!
(Glad I was able to get some utility out of this thread after all 😄)
Nope. I want 36 bits and not a PDP 10 or 6.
Sellam
3:33 p.m.
no
On 06/05/2024 10:28 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
So, now we're adding the age of the buyer as an element of what defines a
"personal" computer?
Sellam
>
No. Not sure where I said that. But, no.
Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for children to be
always and forever explaining things to them,
Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince
3:37 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 8:33 AM Will Cooke via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
no
You mentioned that an Altair 8800 and even a subscription to Popular
Electronics was too much for your 9 year old self, but the TRS-80 wasn't?
Perhaps I misinterpreted.
At any rate, it matters not: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERSONAL COMPUTER.
There, I've done it.
You can all move on with living again. You Are Welcome.
Sellam
On 06/05/2024 10:28 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
So, now we're adding the age of the buyer as an element of what defines a
"personal" computer?
Sellam
>
No. Not sure where I said that. But, no.
3:39 p.m.
On 06/05/2024 10:37 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 8:33 AM Will Cooke via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
One simple question.
If this "discussion" bothers you so much, why do you continue to drag it out?
Thanks for making it all clear for me, though.
Will
Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for children to be
always and forever explaining things to them,
Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince
no
You mentioned that an Altair 8800 and even a subscription to Popular
Electronics was too much for your 9 year old self, but the TRS-80 wasn't?
Perhaps I misinterpreted.
At any rate, it matters not: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERSONAL COMPUTER.
There, I've done it.
You can all move on with living again. You Are Welcome.
Sellam
> On 06/05/2024 10:28 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
So, now we're adding the age of the buyer as an element of what defines a
"personal" computer?
Sellam
>
No. Not sure where I said that. But, no.
3:48 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 8:39 AM Will Cooke via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
One simple question.
If this "discussion" bothers you so much, why do you continue to drag it
out?
Thanks for making it all clear for me, though.
Will
Perhaps you haven't noticed but I've actually been trying to end it for a
while. It's the "If you can't beat'em, join'em (then subvert them
from
within)" gambit.
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sellam
5:03 p.m.
On 05/06/2024 16:37, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
*snip*
You mentioned that an Altair 8800 and even a subscription to Popular
Electronics was too much for your 9 year old self, but the TRS-80 wasn't?
Perhaps I misinterpreted.
At any rate, it matters not: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERSONAL COMPUTER.
There, I've done it.
You can all move on with living again. You Are Welcome.
Sellam
To quote a popular Australian childrens show, "It's just monkeys singing
songs, mate", meaning "There's no reason to over think it"
The argument as to what defines a personal computer is as nuanced and
varied as "what defines a retro computer". No-one will ever agree,
because no-one has exactly the same opinions on what defines such a
thing. There is literally no way for everyone to nail down a precise
definition, because everyone's definitions are different. Attempting to
justify your position is ultimately pointless, because you will never
get a majority to agree with your position.
To spin things round to a personal opinion of mine (not related to the
"Personal Computer" argument here), i'm of the opinion that the
"minicomputer" never died. Modern multicore x86 servers with attached
iSCSI SANs and ultra high speed connectivity are topologically similar
to a PDP-11 with a bunch of RL02's serving a room full of VT220's. But
then there's a lot of people who would scoff at the comparison. But
that's my opinion.
As someone once said "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and
they all stink."
Josh Rice
7 Jun
7 Jun
2:18 p.m.
Before we do any more automotive analogies of the "personal
computer" definitions, . . .
Could somebody explain to me
What is a "muscle car"?
What is a "sports car"
I have heard the Ford Mustang, which seems like a Foulcon with
cosmetically redesigned body panels, referred to as each of those.
I think that the Mustang came stock with one of the wimpiest six cylinder
engines that Ford had. If you special ordered the optional four cylinder
engine, would it still be a "muscle car"?
Handling seemed to be pretty much unchanged from the Foulcon. Did you
need the dealer-option racing stripe to be a "sports car"?
We can at least all agree that the Ford Mustang was not a "personal
computer", nor "Personal Computer", although almost any Personal Computer
could fit in the back seat or the trunk, but probably not in the glove
compartment. A mini-computer, disunirregardless of whether it was
"Personal", would require the convertible model, with the top down.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
4:10 p.m.
New subject: Sports cars (was: Re: Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s))
On 6/7/24 07:18, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
Before we do any more automotive analogies of the
"personal computer"
definitions, . . .
Could somebody explain to me
What is a "muscle car"?
A semi-archaic term used in reference to cars
defined primarily by power
output relative to the average at the time the vehicle was marketed.
What is a "sports car"
A semi-archaic term used to describe a car which is designed to handle
well at the expense of ride comfort and size.
A muscle car was typically relatively good at the quarter mile, but
frequently miserable on the track.
A sports car frequently was not particularly powerful. The series one
Lotus 7 shipped with a Ford Sidevalve engine rocking in at 36HP, the
Series two upgraded to a Ford Kent, initially making...39HP.
I have heard the Ford Mustang, which seems like a Foulcon with
cosmetically redesigned body panels, referred to as each of those.
In the special case of the Mustang, it depends on when you ask the question.
The Mustang was literally originally marketed, I kid you not, as a car
for secretaries. As you suggest, it started life as a generation-two
Falcon with a body kit (this isn't strictly true, the original 1962 T-5
Mustang was a two seat, mid-engine thing of which I believe two were
built). As initially designed, it was never intended to be a high
performance vehicle, although the Falcon chassis actually handled
remarkably well for the time. It was for all intents essentially a
parts bin car, using interior, chassis, suspension, and drivetrain
components from the Falcon and the Fairlane -- enough so that people
trained to build or maintain either of those vehicles could find their
way around a Mustang without any real additional training.
I think that the Mustang came stock with one of the wimpiest six
cylinder engines that Ford had. If you special ordered the optional
four cylinder engine, would it still be a "muscle car"?
The original six rocked in at 2.8L making a whopping 101 HP, this was
almost immediately replaced by a 3.3L pumping out 120HP; the other
option was a 4.3L V8 making a miserable 164HP, followed in the same 1964
1/2 upgrade by a 4.7L grinding out 210HP. Pretty awful numbers for
today, but by the standards of the time, not terribly bad given the use
of dizzies and one (for the six) and two barrel carbs; for comparison,
the 3.7L I6 in the first generation Camaro made 140HP. Ford wasn't
uniquely bad at extracting power from gasoline, but it wasn't until the
Mustang-spawned horsepower wars of the later 1960's and very early
1970's that they started to make semi-respectable power.
Handling seemed to be pretty much unchanged from the Foulcon. Did you
need the dealer-option racing stripe to be a "sports car"?
The Series I
Mustang is very much a Falcon with a body kit, but despite
being sedans, Falcons handled quite well, and with the lighter body of
the Mustang was quite respectable. By the commonly used terms, the
series one Mustang was a reasonable sports car, but decidedly not a
muscle car. Move to 1969, the Mustang gets larger and heavier, but the
4.9L V8 is making a more respectable 290HP while the insane 7.0L is
cranking out 375 while not materially affecting weight or weight
distribution. The Mustang in now both a muscle car and a sports car.
Of course it was all downhill after that, until emissions regulations
required manufacturers to make things run properly and computing power
evolved to make it possible.
We can at least all agree that the Ford Mustang was not a "personal
computer", nor "Personal Computer", although almost any Personal
Computer could fit in the back seat or the trunk, but probably not in
the glove compartment. A mini-computer, disunirregardless of whether
it was "Personal", would require the convertible model, with the top
down.
Not sure about that. We stuck a Nova 840, a couple of Diablo 30's, and
assorted other bits and bobs in a 1960's Mustang, and I once dragged an
Eclipse S/130, Diablo model 30, and a Hazeltine 2000 home in a early
1970's Toyota Corolla. All sans racks, of course...
--
Christian Kennedy, Ph.D.
chris(a)mainecoon.com AF6AP | DB00000692 | PG00029419
http://www.mainecoon.com PGP KeyID 108DAB97
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
"Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration…"
4:33 p.m.
New subject: Sports cars (was: Re: Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s))
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 9:10 AM Christian Kennedy via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Not sure about that. We stuck a Nova 840, a couple of
Diablo 30's, and
assorted other bits and bobs in a 1960's Mustang, and I once dragged an
Eclipse S/130, Diablo model 30, and a Hazeltine 2000 home in a early
1970's Toyota Corolla. All sans racks, of course...
--
Christian Kennedy, Ph.D.
I once hauled home about 20 Apple //e's and peripherals in a 2-door Honda
Civic Coupe.
Trust me, it was impressive.
Sellam
5:34 p.m.
New subject: Sports cars
On 2024-06-07 12:10, Christian Kennedy via cctalk wrote:
On 6/7/24 07:18, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> Before we do any more automotive analogies of the "personal computer"
> definitions, . . .
> Could somebody explain to me
> What is a "muscle car"?
You guys just prove again, that any thread about vintage computer will
lead eventually to ford carburetors ...
:)
4:47 p.m.
On 06/07/2024 9:18 AM CDT Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
We can at least all agree that the Ford Mustang was not a "personal
computer", nor "Personal Computer", although almost any Personal Computer
could fit in the back seat or the trunk, but probably not in the glove
compartment. A mini-computer, disunirregardless of whether it was
"Personal", would require the convertible model, with the top down.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
Hmmm, if you get into that shiny new 1965 'stang, start it (that's the hard part.
It IS a Ford.), put it in D and press the accelerator, it will solve a whole slew of
differential equations concerning mass, engine power and RPM, gravity, friction, wind
resistance, etc for the speed that solves them all simultaneously and give an answer on a
"solution gauge" (aka speedometer.) So, a computer. And since automobiles are
a very personal thing, most definitely a "personal computer." :-)
Will
Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for children to be
always and forever explaining things to them,
Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince
1 Jun
1 Jun
1:11 a.m.
Sorry, WRONG.
A computer type is "Personal" (capital P as a NAME for a class of computers) not
based upon how ONE instance of it is used, but based upon the intent of its design and how
many in practice. Musk could buy the lastest Frontier supercomputer and ONLY use it to
play chess with himself, that does NOT make every single instance of them into Personal
computers (capitalized). That ONE SINGLE instance might be a personal computer (not
capitalized), but not the class of ALL Frontier computers.
if One person using one computer made it "personal" then probably every single
D*mn computer ever made is, since at some point, somebody came in on down time and used it
as a "personal computer" (not capitalized). I used 1620s, and 360/30s, a
360/40, and others as a personal computer at times, for things like writing a Tim Conway
game of life, keeping track of my vinyl records, etc.
So if you want to say "personal computer" (not capitalized), I will stipulate
that EVERY computer is a "personal computer" and the term becomes meaningless.
Hence we toss that usage, and do away with the need to capitalize the term.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
On 05/31/2024 11:07 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Any computer can be "personal" if only one person uses it for their
own private purposes, right?
1:35 a.m.
On 05/31/2024 8:11 PM CDT CAREY SCHUG via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Sorry, WRONG.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
Why do I feel like I'm observing a first grade classroom where the boys are arguing
about whose dad can beat up the others?
Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for children to be
always and forever explaining things to them,
Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince
2:14 a.m.
It appears that one can determine what is a personal and/or a microcomputer
that satisfies only the author. If one states that and believes it then
that is all that’s necessary. I wrote a book based on this line of thinking
and if a reader disagrees with me that is fine. I’m not declaring the true
and only way as the means to change anyone’s view. I wrote it to give a
background on the history of the microcomputer that may or may not be the
whole truth.
Happy computing,
Murray :-)
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 9:36 PM Will Cooke via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On 05/31/2024 8:11 PM CDT CAREY SCHUG via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Sorry, WRONG.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
Why do I feel like I'm observing a first grade classroom where the boys
are arguing about whose dad can beat up the others?
Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for
children to be always and forever explaining things to them,
Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince
7:36 p.m.
Liam Proven wrote:
Microprocessors are what created the PC. No µP = not a
PC.
So, if I get this right, the term "PC" to means something like the
"personal computer" of today (children of IBM PC or Apple Macintosh) or at least
perhaps something as old as an Apple II, a Commodore PET.
Perhaps even an Altair or IMSAI, though these are a bit different than an Apple II or a
PET or TRS-80 because they required additional "stuff" to make them comparable
the Apple, Commodore, or Radio Shack machines. You'd have to add some sort of display
and a controller card for the display, a keyboard of some sort, and at least an output
port for an external printer, and perhaps a serial port to make it roughly equivalent to
an Apple II or a TRS-80.
I find it had to make distinctions in some cases, because some machines tend to bend the
rules a bit.
How about the Hewlett Packard 9830 "calculator"? It had BASIC in ROM, and came
up in BASIC when powered-on. No microprocessor, though. Instead, it had a TTL
implementation of a somewhat scaled down version of HP's 2100 minicomputer CPU. It
had a 40-character LED dot matrix display, a digital cassette tape drive, and you could
sit a fast thermal printer on top of it and plug it right into a connector on the back of
the machine. It had ROMpack slots for additional functionality, and I/O expansion slots
that could provide connections to external hard disk subsystems (that could be shared
among multiple 9830's), a plotter, a punched paper tape reader, and a punched card
reader, among others. It was expensive. But, it was intended as a single-user computer.
For the most part, this sounds like some early personal computers.
Some HP 9830s were bought new by people with the means for their home use as a
"personal computer, and for the time, a quite capable one at that. This one is a
little tricky because of its lack of a microprocessor. But, it still seems to be pretty
PC-ish to me.
I assume by the definition that since a Tektronix 4051 has a Motorola 6800 inside,
it's a PC, right? The 4051 had no multi-user capabilities, and was fully intended for
one person to sit down in front of it and do whatever it was they wanted to do, be it
playing a game (there were a lot of games for the machine), or do some data acquisition,
visualization and manipulation, or even mundane stuff like inventory, payroll,
receivables, payables...you get the picture. It was a truly general-purpose computer.
That said, what about a Tektronix 4052(1978)?
It doesn't have a microprocessor in it, but it was definitely designed as a personal
computing device with a graphics display and built-in mass storage (cartridge tape), just
like the 4051. In fact, looking at a 4052, if you ignore the "4052" badge on the
machine, you can't tell it apart from a 4051, and from a BASIC programming standpoint,
they are the same.
While the 4051 was very successful, and absolutely did end up in the homes of individual
buyers (base price of $5,995, but there were individuals that had the means to buy one as
their own personal computer for at home). The 4051's intended markets were
engineering, scientific, and data acquisition/data reduction work.
One criticism of the 4051 was that it was a bit too slow on number crunching and drawing
graphics, requiring some patience if you are doing some serious numerical
processing/graphics.
To respond to those critics saying that the 4051 being too slow, Tektronix designed a
bit-slice implementation of the 6800 (using the 2901 bit-slice devices, fast bipolar ROM
for microcode storage, and a 16-bit wide bus versus 8 bits of the 6800 to speed up
double-byte operations), added a few tweaks to the instruction set to address more memory
than the 6800 could natively address(separate RAM and ROM space, so RAM could be 64K, and
ROM could be 64K, but banking of the ROM made even more space available), and hooked in
the rest of the 4051 (storage tube graphical display, cartridge tape unit, keyboard, GPIB,
and ROMPACK slot) such that it was for all intents and purposes, a faster 4051. With no
microprocessor. Of course, it cost more than the 4051. However, like the 4051, some
4052's did sell to individuals to get themselves a powerful personal computer at home.
The 4052 was much more powerful than any Apple II, Atari 400/800, TRS-80, or Commodore
PET/VIC-20/64. Yes, most of those machines could do graphics, and they were raster
bitmapped or tricky equivalents thereof(Atari), but their graphics were primitiS1281ve in
comparison to the 4051/4052's 1024x780 point vector storage display.
What about a Three Rivers/ICL PERQ 1(1980)? It had a microprocessor in it, a Z-80.
However, the Z-80 was relegated to being used as an I/O processor for the hard disk,
floppy disk, speech synthesizer, IEEE-488, and RS232-serial port. The main CPU was a
bipolar custom CPU that used 74S181 high-speed ALU slices, and a microcoded architecture.
The cool thing is that the microcode store was writable! It had up to 2M (256K minimum)
of 64-bit wide RAM (with a 16-bit bus), and a built-in 12MB or 24MB hard disk drive and an
8" floppy drive. It also had a 768x1024 bitmapped monochrome (portrait) display, and
a graphics tablet. It cost somewhere between $20,000 and $27,500 in base form, with the
variance being uncertainties in prices due to varying configurations that have price
information available, but not much in the way of actual configuration.
Yes, that's a bit much for someone to buy as a personal computer, but it's
certainly possible for a person of substantial means. It wasn't a multi-user system,
it was intended to be used by a single person sitting at the machine. It plugged into a
regular wall outlet. It actually had a GUI, perhaps one of the earliest to exist, and
was something that did not exist for the storage-tube Tektronix machines or most certainly
not for an HP 9830.
I'm absolutely not arguing with Liam's point.
I do believe that the microprocessor was the driving force in making possible a device
that fits the full definition of a computer, that an average person could buy, take home
and unpack and set up in fairly short order, and be up and running with their TV as a
display, running BASIC, and a cassette tape recorder for storing and loading programs.
A true personal computer, no doubt.
I think that in a general sense, it certainly fits that a personal computer is more
commonly a microcomputer, and thus, has a microprocessor (perhaps more than one) as its
main processing element.
With that said, any time that generalities are used, there always seem to be exceptions
that sneak their way in and cloud any general definition of a term. I believer that as
time goes on, the definition is going to get more and more difficult.
With technology advancing as fast as it is, it seems feasible that a small device could be
implanted in one's brain that utilizes generation of neural impulses to generate
imagery that appears as it is being seen by the eyes, and similarly with sound, and
communicates at least initially by recognizing spoken commands (and likely later, just
thinking about what you want done), that is connected to (whatever the Internet becomes)
full time, with full AI capabilities embedded as part of its operation. I believe one of
Elon Musk's companies is working on that and has been for some time. Perhaps that
device may well redefine the meaning of a "personal" computer.
Perhaps more appropriately the "computer personal" (the computer first, the
person secondary).
Would I want one? Hell no.
-Rick
--
Rick Bensene
The Old Calculator Museum
https://oldcalculatormuseum.com
Beavercreek, Oregon USA
27 May
27 May
12:13 p.m.
On Sat, 25 May 2024, Dave Dunfield wrote:
As a non-native speaker:
What is the difference between buss/buses(pl.) and bus/busses(pl.)?
I mean, you don't say omnibuss, do you?
Christian
First S100
buss system
Originally called "Roberts Buss" the Atair expansion buss was used by
many systems that followed, and not wanting to use their competitors
name, the buss became known as "S100" (presumably System buss with
100 pins) 
1:43 p.m.
Christian Corti via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> writes:
What is the difference between buss/buses(pl.) and
bus/busses(pl.)?
I mean, you don't say omnibuss, do you?
No difference -- they're variant spellings of the same word. From the
examples given in the OED, it looks like "buss" was originally the more
common spelling when people first started shortening "omnibus". It might
have been influenced by older words in English pronounced the same way,
e.g. "buss" meaning "to kiss", or "a buss" being a type of
fishing boat.
Both spellings were in use by the time "bus[s]-bar" was invented, which
is where the computer sense comes from. We wouldn't call a vehicle a
"buss" any more, but both spellings survive in electronics.
--
Adam Sampson <ats(a)offog.org> <http://offog.org/>
157
days inactive
182
days old
201 comments
43 participants
participants (43)
-
Adam Sampson -
Adrian Godwin -
ben -
Bill Degnan -
Bill Gunshannon -
Brent Hilpert -
Cameron Kaiser -
CAREY SCHUG -
Christian Corti -
Christian Kennedy -
Christian Liendo -
Chuck Guzis -
CJ Reha -
Dave Dunfield -
dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com -
Doc Shipley -
Don R -
dwight -
emanuel stiebler -
Fred Cisin -
Harald Arnesen -
jim stephens -
John Herron -
Jon Elson -
Joshua Rice -
Kenton A. Hoover -
Lawrence Wilkinson -
Liam Proven -
Mike Katz -
Mike Stein -
Murray McCullough -
Nigel Johnson Ham -
Paul Koning -
Rich Alderson -
Rick Bensene -
Sellam Abraham -
Steve Lewis -
Tarek Hoteit -
Tom Hunter -
Tony Duell -
Vincent Slyngstad -
wrcooke＠wrcooke.net -
Zane Healy