Many of the midrange minies like the PDP-11, perq, and a host of others
can and did do much of the web thing. much of the old machines don't do
that was not a matter of speed or memory but software conceived to do that.
is it practical not finance wise the user population is too small and would
not pay much but the hardware can make a good account of itself.
Keep in mind most of the PCs have only gotten to or exceeded the
minicomputer performance level say in the last 7 years maybe less.
Before then people used all manner of things to accomplish was PCs
are commonly used for.
Allison
>I do use my old machines now and then, but if anyone here has never ran a
>modern MAC or PC, they have NO idea what is bieng missed. web pages in full
>photo quality color, realistic games, PPP connections, Realaudio etc. I am
>not a member of the dark force, I just have a multitude of machines, and I
>have EXPERIANCED running them, from an apple ][ +, C=64, IBM XT, and a 586-133.
>we must have an open mind about this, as there are some who still never ran
>anything NEW, and pass judgment about how bad a machine is when they have
>never used one.
A different thought - I don't really buy the argument for owning a modern
machine for the purposes of "better" games. But the Web browser thing is
slightly different, being a VERY powerful and useful communication method.
I have heard that the C64 and Atari 8-bit machines now have graphical Web
browsers and PPP clients running on them. The TI community is working on
a TCP/IP system, but we were debating the possibility of a Web browser.
The argument I and others made in its defense was, granted the stock
hardware is incapable of SVGA-grade graphical displays, with appropriate
decoding, you can get "close" (with sufficient processing time), and if
you have to "scroll" around to see the entire page, so what?
1. Am I correct in what I have heard of the C64 and Atari 8-bitters?
2. Is this a reasonable argument for "home computers" being fit out for
browsing? Or is it silly when $2000 (maybe even below $1000) can get you
a Web-capable peecee?
3. What other apps are there that are REALLY useful for home use that
modern machines have and "home computers" don't? And is is really
impossible to do these tasks on "home computers"? Is it worth the time
and effort (even out of love) to write the software, or even create the
new peripherals, to enable the old iron to do the job?
--
**********************************************
* David Ormand *** Southwest 99ers *
* dlormand(a)aztec.asu.edu *** Tucson, Arizona *
**************************** TMS9900 Lives! *
I am glad to hear that others, like myself, commonly use a "non-mainstream"
machine for ordinary home applications. I would like to keep this discussion
going for a while. I don't know that Dr. Shoppa using all that classic
DEC machinery at his Canadian university qualifies as doing "ordinary home
applications", although I'm delighted to hear that the old junk is still
providing useful service (heck, at Hughes here, we have PDP-11s running
AMRAAM test equipment, and HP-1000s running Tomahawk test equipment).
>But it depends upon what you are doing. While in theory you could
>calculate e to 100,000 digits using an Apple ][, it might take upwards of a
>week for the results, and you couldn't use the computer in the meantime,
>whereas on modern machines, 100,000 digits could be generated in under an
>hour, and with the right OS, you could still work on other things [1].
I would also hesitate to say that calculating e to 100,000th digits is
an ordinary household task. As is graphics arts, desktop publishing, audio
mixing, and a lot of other things that some people do in their homes for fun
or profit. Obviously you need the tools for the job. But nearly EVERYTHING
you do for common home jobs can be done on the "home computers" that were sold
for the purpose nearly 20 years ago.
>I do use my old machines now and then, but if anyone here has never ran a
>modern MAC or PC, they have NO idea what is bieng missed. web pages in full
>photo quality color, realistic games, PPP connections, Realaudio etc. I am
>not a member of the dark force, I just have a multitude of machines, and I
>have EXPERIANCED running them, from an apple ][ +, C=64, IBM XT, and a 586-133.
>we must have an open mind about this, as there are some who still never ran
>anything NEW, and pass judgment about how bad a machine is when they have
>never used one.
I really have no dispute with people with modern machines. [Especially
Macs or BeOS machines, for instance; peecees to me are primarily means
for the Microsoft empire to attain world domination.] My beef is:
(a) When these people look down on you for sticking with your "toy"
computer when theirs is obviously so much more superior to yours,
(b) People mislead by the above people into thinking that they MUST
have a Pentium-class peecee to balance their checkbooks on,
(c) User/owners of "non-mainstream" machines dumping them when they
swallow the propaganda that they MUST have a peecee or they will
be hopelessly left behind.
The obvious reason the collectors in this List can acquire the classic machines
for pennies from thrift stores is that people who donate to or shop at these
thrift stores believe this is worthless junk that isn't capable of doing
anything useful. I (and others on this List) KNOW that is false, but what can
you do? How do you raise a voice of opposition in the face of the Wintel
juggernaut?
--
**********************************************
* David Ormand *** Southwest 99ers *
* dlormand(a)aztec.asu.edu *** Tucson, Arizona *
**************************** TMS9900 Lives! *
Here's the list I keep. Sorry about the formatting.
Kai
November, 1971 Intel 4004 CPU
1971 Nutting & Associates Computer Space arcade
1972 Atari Pong arcade
1972 Magnavox Odyssey home video game system
November, 1972 Intel 8008 CPU
March, 1974 Scelbi 8H kit appears in QST magazine
April, 1974 Intel 8080 CPU
July, 1974 Mark 8 plans appear in Radio Electronics magazine
August, 1974 Motorola 6800
1974 RCA 1802 CPU
1974 Atari Pong home game
January, 1975 MITS Altair 8800
September, 1975 IBM 5100
1975 IMSAI 8080
1975 Processor Technology Sol
1975 MOS Technology/Commodore KIM-1
July, 1976 Apple I kit
July, 1976 Zilog Z80 CPU
1976 Fairchild/Zircon Channel F home game
April, 1977 Apple II
April, 1977 Commodore PET
August, 1977 Tandy TRS-80
1977 Atari 2600 VCS home game
1977 RCA Studio II home game
1977 Bally Astrocade home game
1978 Intel 8085 CPU
June, 1978 Intel 8086 CPU
December, 1978 Atari 400/800 s
1978 Taito/Bally/Midway Space Invaders arcade
1978 Magnavox Odyssey2 home game
February, 1979 Intel 8088 CPU
May, 1979 Seattle Products 8086 S-100 CPU board
May, 1979 Tandy TRS-80 Model II
June, 1979 Texas Instruments 99/4
June, 1979 Apple II+
September, 1979 Motorola 68000 CPU
1979 Atari Asteroids arcade
1979 Atari Lunar Lander arcade
1979 Mattel Intellivision home game
February, 1980 Sinclair ZX80
June, 1980 Commodore VIC-20
July, 1980 Tandy TRS-80 Model III
July, 1980 Tandy TRS-80 Color I
September, 1980 Apple III
1980 Atari Battlezone arcade
1980 Atari Missile Command arcade
1980 Bally/Midway Pac-Man arcade
1980 APF M1000 home game
April, 1981 Osborne 1
May, 1981 Xerox Star
August, 1981 IBM PC
1981 Atari Centipede arcade
1981 Nintendo Donkey Kong arcade
November, 1982 Compaq Portable PC
1982 Commodore 64
1982 Colecovision home game
1982 GCE/Milton Bradley Vectrex home game
1982 Milton Bradley Microvision hand held game
1982 Atari 5200 home game
1982 Emerson Arcadia 2001 home game
January, 1983 Apple Lisa
January, 1983 Apple Iie
March, 1983 Tandy TRS-80 Model 100
April, 1983 Tandy TRS-80 Model 4
June, 1983 Coleco Adam
October, 1983 IBM PC-XT
October, 1983 Compaq Portable Plus
December, 1983 Apple III+
1983 Mattel Intellivision II home game
1983 Mattel Aquarius
January, 1984 Apple Macintosh
February, 1984 IBM Portable PC
March, 1984 IBM PCjr
April, 1984 Apple IIc
June, 1984 Compaq DeskPro
August, 1984 IBM PC-AT
September, 1984 Tandy 1000
1984 Motorola 68010 CPU
1984 Intel 80186 CPU
1984 Intel 80286 CPU
January, 1985 Commodore 128
January, 1985 Atari 520ST
January, 1985 Atari XE
January, 1985 Apple Macintosh XL
April, 1985 Compaq DeskPro 286
April, 1985 Compaq Portable 286
July, 1985 Commodore Amiga 1000
1985 Nintendo Entertainment System
January, 1986 Apple Macintosh Plus
February, 1986 Compaq Portable II
April, 1986 IBM PC Convertible
August, 1986 Intel 80386 CPU
September, 1986 Compaq DeskPro 386
September, 1986 IBM PC-XT 286
1986 Sega Master System home game
1986 Atari 7800
March, 1987 Apple Macintosh II
April, 1987 IBM PS/2
October, 1987 Compaq Portable 386
1987 Motorola 68030 CPU
> ----------
> From: e.tedeschi
> Reply To: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 1997 4:39 AM
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
> Subject: which month?
>
> I wonder if anybody here has the *exact* months of introduction of the
>
> three first *real* home computers introduced in 1977:
>
> a) the Apple II
> b) the Tandy TRS-80
> c) the Commodore Pet
>
> I need them for a book on collecting home computers I am researching
> for.
>
> Thank you
>
> enrico
> --
> ================================================================
> Enrico Tedeschi, 54, Easthill Drive, BRIGHTON BN41 2FD, U.K.
> tel/fax +(0)1273 701650 (24 hours) or 0850 104725 mobile
> website <http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~e.tedeschi>
> ================================================================
> visit Brighton: <http://www.brighton.co.uk/tourist/welcome.htm>
>
----------
> From: Ward Griffiths and/or Lisa Rogers <gram(a)terra.cnct.com>
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: PETs ( was Who was in Australia?)
> Date: Sunday, June 22, 1997 4:30 PM
>
> On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Olminkhof wrote:
> > keyboard 4k version, a CBM 3032 and a CBM 8032 hulk. I suspect they
will
> > always be around because they are so hard to destroy. The case is very
> > solid. I found the "hulk" in a paddock, like some people find ancient
cars!
> > I've never attempted to power this one up though.
>
> I take "paddock" is Strine for "junkyard", and open to the elements?
"paddock" is an english word for a place where animals graze.
> --
> Ward Griffiths
> "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within
> the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Claire Wolfe
>What worries me is that in a lot of cases, the older machines are more
>useable than the modern Wintel equivalents. This applies both to a new
>user (somebody who just wants to write 2 page letters does _NOT_ (or
>should not) need a 166MHz Pentium with 16Mbytes of RAM), and to 'hackers'
>who want to understand their machines. It's possible for one person to
>complete understand both the hardware and software of most classic
>computers - something that (IMHO) is not possible with a Wintel box.
>Same here. In reality I use my s100 crate, ampro, and sb180 to produce
>8048/9 and 8051 code as they really are faster and easier to use. Also
>being as I have them interconnected it's easier to blast proms in the
>s100 crate. Efficient, very! I've had nearly 20 years to refine the code
>and tools! I have the advantage of having source code for those tools so
>and long latent bugs are easily squashed. This is not doable on PCs.
>I still do my banking/checkbook on the kaypro! Faster than the PC
>overall.
For a while there, I was thinking maybe I'm in the wrong group.
I see a LOT of traffic about restoring and collecting old computers,
and the typical member here is one who has a large collection of
different machines, but except for a rare question about boot disks,
there isn't much said about using these machines. When I turn on my
99/4A or Geneve, it isn't primarily to bask in a nostalgic glow, but
to write something or balance my budget or do some programming.
Certainly the nostalgic glow is there, and it adds a dimension to
the computing experience that peecee devotees cannot understand. But
it IS my primary workhorse, not just a desk queen.
Don't get me wrong; I love to hear about these old machines, so keep
those messages coming. But I would like to hear from others out there
who use their obsolete machines (I prefer "non-mainstream machines")
for practical, everyday, household computing uses.
In fact, I'm wondering how widespread my idea is (shared by a
few, apparently) that the smaller, simpler machines really are well
suited for home use, and you don't need a high-end peecee for nearly
everything you want to do.
--
**********************************************
* David Ormand *** Southwest 99ers *
* dlormand(a)aztec.asu.edu *** Tucson, Arizona *
**************************** TMS9900 Lives! *
> Of course if you were a real hacker you had an M-code box that let you
> write the native 10 bit (?) instructions for the 41's CPU (I forget what
> it's called).
I got more into the guts of the HP-71, which was a 20-bit, nybble-oriented.
It had a Saturn chip (I think), on which I programmed in FORTH. A FORTH
chip was talked about for the HP-41 (never heard it called a coco, though)
but I don't know if it jelled.
> Anyone remember a trivial-pursuit-like Computer Trivia game? It was
being
> touted at one of the last West Coast Computer Faires here in San
Francisco.
> Anyone have a copy?
I have computer-based trivia game (shareware, I think) on a CD-ROM. I could
dig it up, if anyone want it...it had pretty hard questions, which went
'way back to the dawn of time (you know, like the 1950's :> ))
IIRC the TRS-80 was introduced in September 1977.
----------
From: e.tedeschi
Sent: Friday, June 27, 1997 7:39 AM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: which month?
I wonder if anybody here has the *exact* months of introduction of the
three first *real* home computers introduced in 1977:
a) the Apple II
b) the Tandy TRS-80
c) the Commodore Pet
I need them for a book on collecting home computers I am researching
for.
Thank you
enrico
--
================================================================
Enrico Tedeschi, 54, Easthill Drive, BRIGHTON BN41 2FD, U.K.
tel/fax +(0)1273 701650 (24 hours) or 0850 104725 mobile
website <http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~e.tedeschi>
================================================================
visit Brighton: <http://www.brighton.co.uk/tourist/welcome.htm>
