<On the show, they spliced the wire to reformat a message on the wire... d
<you know what type of wire was used on these types of voice/data recorder
<and how would you splice them?
<
<(oh, and could you re-record over a previously used piece of wire?)
Lessee, yes you can re-record on used wire. In fact if you didn't erase
it you would get a overdub! Oh, the wire is soft iron, though any wire
of a magnetic alloy can be used. The technology date t before WWII to
some time in the late 40s-early 50s. It's problems were poor frequency
response, knots/kinks in the wire and head wear.
Allison
-----Original Message-----
From: Uncle Roger <sinasohn(a)ricochet.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 1998 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: Firsts
>At 09:45 PM 1/12/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>> No handles??? 'Tain't a Portable then!
>
>Whups, forgot the 8^)
>
>>Hmmm, maybe having handles isn't the best criteria for determining if a
>>machine is portable.
>
>Hmmm...
>
>Panasonic Sr. Partner: Handle
>Apple Mac Portable: Handle
>HP LS/12: Handle
>Altima 2: Handle
>Good Composer: Handel
>Amstrad PPC640: Handle
>Bondwell B310+: Handle
>Osborne 01: Handle
>
>(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
>
Commodore Sx-64 Handle
Kaypro I Handle
Kaypro II Handle
Kaypro16 Handle
IBM portable PC Handle
Compac Portable Handle
MAC toaster style Handle (yes on top of the unit)(Oops does that make it a
portable?)
(I couldn't resist either)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Francois Auradon.
Visit the SANCTUARY at http://home.att.net/~francois.auradon
>>It seems that portable machines are those which the manufacturer built
>>to be easily picked up (in some cases without grunting too loudly) and
moved
>>to another location to be used. This holds for suitable values of
"easily".
>
>Yep.
>
>>Yes, Roger. I know you were kidding.
>
>Aw, shucks. I thought I had ya fooled. 8^)
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
>
>Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
>roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
>Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
>San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
>
In a message dated 98-01-13 22:25:52 EST, you write:
<< Kevin McQuiggin wrote:
>
> Wire recorders predated tape recorders. They were in use from the early
> 1930s, as I recall. >>
interesting topic. anyone care to describe exactly how it works?
david
uh, right! theres no way IBM is gonna put copyrighted software out on the net
for free. only way to get it is to acquire a copy from someone.
In a message dated 98-01-13 19:44:45 EST, you write:
<< >Hello,
> My name is Mario Soto and I am looking for a version of MS Dos
>5.0 or earlier. The catch is I need it on 720k disk can you help?
I think IBM has disk images available either on the WWW or via ftp.
I've only heard about such things and haven't found/downloaded
them >>
At 09:32 PM 1/13/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>The TRS-80 Model 100 and it's amigos the Nec 8201 and Olivetti ??? had
>Visit the SANCTUARY at http://home.att.net/~francois.auradonhat's probably
>why they are called laptops and not portables.
Shoot, it's not even a laptop. I've seen Pentium notebooks bulkier than a
M100. :)
-John Higginbotham-
-limbo.netpath.net-
At 10:05 PM 1/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>> I think if you consider the 5100 a portable, then so should you consider the
>> PDP-8. The 5100, while more *convenient* to move, perhaps, than, say, an
>> Altair, is hardly all that portable. It's listed as 50lbs (a stretch even
>> for me) and has no handle. You tell me how that's a portable? (It's much
>> like a TRS-80 Model III, only flatter. I think the III is lighter though.)
>
>Even if the implementation may be poor (ie. no handles), I think IBM
>really did try to make the thing truely portable. After all, all you
>needed to do was lug around _one_ 50 pound box to do useful things, rather
>than a processor plus a tube or printer, and perhaps an external power
I dunno... The 5100 was heavy, did not include a case, offered no
protection for the screen, didn't run on batteries...
I think it's only portable in comparison to the mainframes of the time --
that is, you could move it from room to room because it didn't need air
conditioning or special power or anything. But that's true of most of the
computers of the time. Yes, it was a one-piece unit, but I don't think
that's really enough. You wouldn't have really taken it home to finish up
or to a client's office to do an audit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Subj: Re: Firsts
Allison J Parent wrote:
!<> >First programable calc
!<>
!<> Then there is the "first solid state electronic calc" which I think goe
!<> the Busicom from Japan that employed the first production run of the in
!<> 4000 chip set: the 4001 (2048 bit ROM), 4002 (320 bit RAM), 4003 (10 bi
!
!No, this was not the first by a long means. I vaguely remember a desktop
!HP job that was years earlier.
!
!There were designs that were RTL and utililogic and even earlier designs
!that were about the size of a desk drawer that were both totally
!electronic and to some extent programable.
A complete braino on my part: I had wanted to say some like either "first
LSI electronic calc" or perhaps "first microprocessor application".
Sorry I goofed.
As you pointed out in this and a subsequent post there were many "solid state
electronic" calculators available by 1971. Hey, for that matter IBM's S/360
shipped transistorized general purpose transistorized computers (running DOS
and TOS among others) by 1964, and by 1971 they were even beginning to
incorporate integrated circuitry into what would become S/370 computers.
Interestingly the architecture (or its modern desecndant) was not put on a
single microprocessor until just a few years ago (1995 saw the 3490 CMOS
mainframe on a chip). I would not for a moment call these devices mere
calculators though (despite the early reluctance of IBM's marketing
department to call things like the 701 a "computer" for fear
of upsetting the folks employed in that occupation in the 1950's).
Peter Prymmer
At 09:45 PM 1/12/98 -0800, you wrote:
>> No handles??? 'Tain't a Portable then!
Whups, forgot the 8^)
>Hmmm, maybe having handles isn't the best criteria for determining if a
>machine is portable.
Hmmm...
Panasonic Sr. Partner: Handle
Apple Mac Portable: Handle
HP LS/12: Handle
Altima 2: Handle
Good Composer: Handel
Amstrad PPC640: Handle
Bondwell B310+: Handle
Osborne 01: Handle
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
>It seems that portable machines are those which the manufacturer built
>to be easily picked up (in some cases without grunting too loudly) and moved
>to another location to be used. This holds for suitable values of "easily".
Yep.
>Yes, Roger. I know you were kidding.
Aw, shucks. I thought I had ya fooled. 8^)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
At 07:55 PM 1/12/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>1) I took pictures of a bunch of systems:
>> Amstrad PPC640
>I didn't know these were available in the US. I just hauled one back
>(PPC512) from France last week and I thought that I had a very original
>portable (even though it got pretty heavy waiting for customs;)
>Were there any other of the Amstrad marketted in the US like the CPC series?
Well, Amstrad wasn't really big over here, but they did sell a few machines.
Other Amstrad's I've got (second hand) are the PDA600 "PenPad" and the PC-20
(sort of a CoCo-ish/Atari ST-ish one-piece PC).
btw, there was another PPC640 that sold on eBay this weekend, but it was
complete, with power supplies, software, and a really neat case. I didn't
get it, though. 8^(
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
At 08:32 PM 1/13/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Y'know, I once saw an honest-to-god IBM stand-alone plasma monitor in a
>surplus shop. 17" I think (or thereabouts). Pretty neat, but priced a
>little high.
That's one thing I hate about thrift shops: A monitor is a monitor to them.
I've seen monos, cgas, egas, and vgas sitting right next to each other, all
with the same price on them. (Needless to say I grabbed the VGAs!)
-John Higginbotham-
-limbo.netpath.net-
