What exactly is the distinction between the "Series 0" and "Series 1?"
To me a no floppy 5150 16KB-64KB would be missing a floppy controller
and floppy drives.
Marty
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Prices to pay for old computers...
Author: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu at internet
Date: 5/22/98 11:10 AM
At 17:22 5/22/98 +1000, Desie wrote:
>yes I am talking about the original 16kb-64kb model............
>I wounder how many IBM PCs are still out there with only cassette input and
>16KB of RAM............
>no floppy drives.............
>oh well
Of the 16K-64K mb's there are reputed to have been two distinct series,
called "Series 0" and "Series 1." A 16K, Series 0, no-floppy IBM PC is
alleged to have sold at auction in the UK for over UKP 10,000 ....and my
intuition (but no more than that) detects an institutional buyer. (And not
auction like eBay -- auction like Christie's.)
__________________________________________
Kip Crosby engine(a)chac.org
http://www.chac.org/index.html
Computer History Association of California
------ Message Header Follows ------
Received: from lists3.u.washington.edu by smtp.itgonline.com
(PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.9i(b5) for Windows NT(tm))
id AA-1998May22.111047.1767.43068; Fri, 22 May 1998 11:10:47 -0400
Received: from host (lists.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.13])
by lists3.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with SMTP
id IAA19723; Fri, 22 May 1998 08:08:27 -0700
Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.8])
by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with ESMTP
id IAA60688 for <classiccmp(a)lists.u.washington.edu>; Fri, 22 May 1998
08:07:25 -0700
Received: from relay.batnet.com (relay1.batnet.com [204.188.144.18])
by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.09) with SMTP
id IAA29232 for <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>; Fri, 22 May 1998 08:07:21
-0700
Received: from goldrush by relay.batnet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id IAA01218; Fri, 22 May 1998 08:06:27 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980522080349.00f4dc70(a)pop.batnet.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 08:03:49 -0700
Reply-To: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Sender: CLASSICCMP-owner(a)u.washington.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Kip Crosby <engine(a)chac.org>
To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers"
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Prices to pay for old computers...
In-Reply-To: <004501bd8552$61b05340$0f01a8c0@mr-ibm>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: chac(a)pop.batnet.com
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 beta -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
Since there was talk here in the recent past of reviving one of these. I
found the following on comp.sys.ibm.sys3x.misc:
> I have about 40 logic cards, all the power supplies and an 8 inch floppy
> drive from a
> System/34. All are for sale for best offer. Could supply list of numbers
> if interested.
>
> Norm Helmkay helmkay(a)ibm.net
Don't reply to me, I'm just an innocent bystander.
--
David Wollmann
dwollmann(a)ibmhelp.com
Are you saying that the original 16KB 5150 had four rows of 4KB dips?
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Original IBM PC (was Re: Prices to pay for old
Author: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu at internet
Date: 5/22/98 3:17 PM
At 11:11 5/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
>> Of the 16K-64K mb's there are reputed to have been two distinct series,
>> called "Series 0" and "Series 1." A 16K,
>
>What distinguishes the two series?
As noted, I don't know. I'm hoping that someone like Tony does.
>I hope that "16K" means "16/64K model" as opposed to "actually equipped with
>16K of memory."
Your hopes are dashed. The only pricey IBM PCs are the ones that had 16K
installed at the factory and weren't upgraded. The 64K ones are relatively
common, although worth keeping; it's like the difference between a Lisa One
and a Lisa 2.
__________________________________________
Kip Crosby engine(a)chac.org
http://www.chac.org/index.html
Computer History Association of California
------ Message Header Follows ------
Received: from lists3.u.washington.edu by smtp.itgonline.com
(PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.9i(b5) for Windows NT(tm))
id AA-1998May22.151747.1767.43132; Fri, 22 May 1998 15:17:48 -0400
Received: from host (lists.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.13])
by lists3.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with SMTP
id MAA01354; Fri, 22 May 1998 12:09:17 -0700
Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.8])
by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with ESMTP
id MAA18246 for <classiccmp(a)lists.u.washington.edu>; Fri, 22 May 1998
12:09:12 -0700
Received: from relay.batnet.com (relay1.batnet.com [204.188.144.18])
by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.09) with SMTP
id MAA25664 for <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>; Fri, 22 May 1998 12:09:11
-0700
Received: from goldrush by relay.batnet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id MAA03963; Fri, 22 May 1998 12:08:41 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980522120840.00e606b0(a)pop.batnet.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:08:40 -0700
Reply-To: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Sender: CLASSICCMP-owner(a)u.washington.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Kip Crosby <engine(a)chac.org>
To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers"
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Original IBM PC (was Re: Prices to pay for old
computers...)
In-Reply-To: <199805221811.LAA28289(a)saul5.u.washington.edu>
References: <3.0.5.32.19980522080349.00f4dc70(a)pop.batnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: chac(a)pop.batnet.com
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 beta -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
I have a 16KB-64KB 5150, it has one row of 16KB dips soldered in place
with three rows of 16KB dips socketed. Pull the three rows of socketed
16KB dips and it's a 16KB 5150 equipped with 16KB of soldered in
memory.
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Original IBM PC (was Re: Prices to pay for old computers...)
Author: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu at internet
Date: 5/22/98 2:18 PM
> Of the 16K-64K mb's there are reputed to have been two distinct series,
> called "Series 0" and "Series 1." A 16K,
What distinguishes the two series?
I hope that "16K" means "16/64K model" as opposed to "actually equipped with
16K of memory."
-- Derek
------ Message Header Follows ------
Received: from lists2.u.washington.edu by smtp.itgonline.com
(PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.9i(b5) for Windows NT(tm))
id AA-1998May22.141838.1767.43121; Fri, 22 May 1998 14:18:39 -0400
Received: from host (lists.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.13])
by lists2.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with SMTP
id LAA05331; Fri, 22 May 1998 11:11:38 -0700
Received: from jason02.u.washington.edu (root(a)jason02.u.washington.edu
[140.142.76.8])
by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with ESMTP
id LAA15582 for <classiccmp(a)lists.u.washington.edu>; Fri, 22 May 1998
11:11:35 -0700
Received: from saul5.u.washington.edu (dpeschel(a)saul5.u.washington.edu
[140.142.83.3])
by jason02.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with ESMTP
id LAA49024 for <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>; Fri, 22 May 1998 11:11:34
-0700
Received: (from dpeschel@localhost)
by saul5.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.04)
id LAA28289 for classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu; Fri, 22 May 1998 11:11:33 -
0700
(PDT)
Message-Id: <199805221811.LAA28289(a)saul5.u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Sender: CLASSICCMP-owner(a)u.washington.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "D. Peschel" <dpeschel(a)u.washington.edu>
To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers"
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Subject: Original IBM PC (was Re: Prices to pay for old computers...)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980522080349.00f4dc70(a)pop.batnet.com> from "Kip
Crosby" at May 22, 98 08:03:49 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 beta -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
At 12:47 PM 5/21/98 -0500, you wrote:
>> Nope, HMR.
First off, for those not in the know, HMR is HMR USA (see
<http://www.hmrusa.com/>), a "global recycler". What they do mostly is
take in a *HUGE* warehouse full of older computers and ship them overseas
where they'll be used. They also sell stuff to individuals on Fridays and
alternate Saturdays.
>I called them once to inquire about their inventory, and I got the
>impression that they were asking for real money (like $100 for obsolete,
>err, classic, laptops). Do they drop prices on the weekend?
It's all very subjective. You go in, find what you want, ask how much, and
then haggle. $100 should get you a '386 Compaq, probably with docking
station. But you never know. I've walked away from stuff I really wanted
because the guy said too high a price. (Like my DG-1; the first time I saw
it, I think the guy said $50, the next time, I think a different guy said
like $20 or so.)
>> You wouldn't know what type of HD is in there, would you?
>
>I think they were probably using Conners. It's easy to check. Pop off the
>plastic feet on the back panel to reveal two screws. Remove them, and
>then pop off the lid.
Cool. I'll check it out. Thanks!
>BTW, Doug Coward seems to have the world's supply of T100's, but he says
>they're not laptops. I always assumed the rectangle in the upper right
>corner I had seen in pix was an LCD, but apparently not (is it a cartridge
>slot?).
Hmmm... I may still have to get one. Have take a look at a pic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.sinasohn.com/
C'mon, guys... this whole MS vs. DoJ mess is turning into another
list-cluttering slug-fest.
Contrary to what MS would, apparently, like the world to believe, there
are choices when it comes to OS's. Run what best suits your needs and
desires, and don't bash others for doing the same.
Caveat emptor!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Sysop, The Dragon's Cave BBS (Fidonet 1:343/272)
(Hamateur: WD6EOS) (E-mail: kyrrin(a)jps.net)
"Our science can only describe an object, event, or living thing in our own
human terms. It cannot, in any way, define any of them..."
>> Linux is free and it may be better (it's abosolute hell to install)
>
>I'd disagree with you on "absolute hell". It's much less difficult
>than the "historical" Unices that I've installed over the years on
>PDP-11's.
I have a shorter time installing Linux (Red Hat 5.0) than I do Windows
95/3.1!!! It's easy, if you're like me, using standard IDE/UDMA componets,
a PCI bus, etc.
>The only "difficult" Linux installs that I've done were when none of
>the commonly-distributed kernels had support for some particular
>device necessary for system operation (i.e. some obscure SCSI
>host adapter), and I had to do a kernel build on another system
>for this configuration first.
SCSI makes things difficult. Seriously. On this 'ere machine, the SCSI
contoller makes for... a partially cooled hell for instalation.
>On the other hand, many "free" Unix ports I've seen are not only
>absolute hell to install, mainly because the installation instructions/
>script are badly out of sync with the distributed binaries. NetBSD-VAX
>is what springs to mind at the moment!
I'll have to take your word on that. But then again, the first name usually
denotes a total genius!!! (Tim O'Reilly, Tim Berners-Lee...)
>Of course, it depends on what you're comparing against :-). From
>your other comments it sounds like your standard of reference is
>probably VMS, in which case I'll agree, by comparison Linux is
>absolute hell.
How 'bout comparing it to... FreeDOS? (http://www.freedos.org) I BTW,
support this idea entirely, as after Windows 98, MS said they arn't going to
include a DOS with Windows, so you'll need a DOS if MS isn't around/making
OS's. Actually, I think that MS has had a smart strategy in recent months.
Internet Explorer for Solaris, NetShow for Linux... I think that it's about
time that MS dropped their dead-weight which gives them little profits and
focus at what they're good at: Ease of use (on dirt cheap PC's), etc. Now,
I kinda like Windows, like MacOS for the rest of us. But I think that if MS
focused on other things, or stopped focusing on "We're the best at
everything" and started thinking "We could save money, time, and PR funds by
working on other OS's"... like making a cross NT-Linux.... that'd be COOL!!!
>Tim.
Yep.
Found this on the Obsolete Computer Helpline
(http://ncsc.dni.us/fun/user/tcc/cmuseum/helpline/helpline.htm) and
since all the buzz about NorthStar's on here lately I figured someone
might contact this person. I'm sure many of you are even nearby this guy
and could easily get him what he needs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Troxell <nitedriver(a)webtv.net>
Vineland, NJ US - Thursday, May 21, 1998 at 12:08:26
Wanted: Boot Disk (and any other) for a Z-100 North Star Advantage.
If I remember correctly these are
special/different format/# of sectors than all others. Any help
would be greatly appreciated. This ex-Fuzzari of all
PC's is dead in water w/o it.
TIA,
John Troxell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Blakeman
RB Custom Services / Rt. 1 Box 62E / Harned, KY USA 40144
Phone: (502) 756-1749 Data/Fax:(502) 756-6991
Email: rhblake(a)bbtel.com or rhblake(a)bigfoot.com
Website: http://members.tripod.com/~RHBLAKE/
ICQ UIN #1714857
AOL Instant Messenger "RHBLAKEMAN"
* Parts/Service/Upgrades and more for MOST Computers*
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi. Are these the 286's that Zenith sold by the mass-quadrillions to the US
Gov't??? If so, they're pretty cool, when you get down to it. CPU's on a
backplane, they had a 386 upgrade, and even a 486 one, but the 386's didn't
sell, 486's were only prototypes, from what I can tell.
By pressing CRL+INS you could get into this WAY COOL Apple II like ROM
test program. Pleanty of RAM, etc. Trust me, I know. Every single day of
the week, I USE ONE OF THESE in math class. Cool retro use, don't you
agree??? It runs WP 5.1, they weren't equipped with Windows, but MS-DOS 5.0
(at least that's what I see, might have been 3.3), and some came with this
cool monitor that had a Amber/Green/Normal switch, but only worked well in
mono, not CGA mode.
Tim D. Hotze
This is too good! I just can't resist getting my two cents worth in!
At 06:23 PM 5/21/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Sure the DOS license was a big initial push, but to say it was solely
>responsible for the success of Microsoft is like saying the Model T is
>responsible for Ford having the best selling vehicle in America today.
Then you had better go back and look at automotive history. Ford was
just another car company among dozens, yes dozens, of similar companies
until they brought out the model T. That put them in the lead and they've
been there ever since. Since the model T they've bought up or plowed under
most of the competion with the exception of the other major companies like
GM and Chrysler. That seems to be the same strategy that MS is using. MS
Hell! ALL companies do it! I used to work for Martin Marietta, look at
all the competitors they've bought up in the last couple of years!
>
>Microsoft was a development products company, not an OS company. When I got
>here in 1988, I remember seeing a revenue pie chart at the company meeting.
>We were at around 60-70% revenue from development products like C++ &
>FORTRAN, with a big slice from apps like Word & Multiplan, and DOS revenue
>was a tiny slice.
Exactly and I'm sure that Win 95 or Win 98 will also be a tiny slice. MS
gives away the OS, then makes up the profit by selling you all the
applications that require that OS.
In a decade where everything had to be written directly
>to the hardware to get any speed out of the 8088, you can hardly say that
>the DOS license had much to do with the success of the dev products.
>
>Our first, all time most successful Windows app, Excel, that nuked the Lotus
>1-2-3 monopoly through ease of use and customer demand alone, was _ported
>from the Macintosh_. How exactly could we have leveraged our ownership of
>Windows to make Excel successful when it wasn't even written for Windows?
What do mean, wasn't written for Windows??? You certainly couldn't take
a Mac disk and put it in a PC with Windows and run it! It may have
ORIGINALLY been written for a Mac but it was certainly rewritten for
Windows. The Windows very only looked and actly like the Mac version, the
code was entirely rewritten.
>
>If IBM endorsing & bundling an OS makes it a monopoly, why is OS/2 dead?
Because (1) MS very publicly announced that they were dropping support
for it (2) MS (and others) never sold any significant application programs
for it.
That's exactly what a monoply is all about, the power to kill a rival
product through direct action or in this case a lack of action. That's why
DOJ and a lot of others would like to see MS's monopoly broken.
Joe
>
>etc.
>
>Kai
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Doug Yowza [mailto:yowza@yowza.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 5:37 PM
>To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
>Subject: RE: cat Xerox | Apple | Microsoft ?
>
>
>On Thu, 21 May 1998, Kai Kaltenbach wrote:
>
>> We weren't, and aren't, Orwellian characters,
>> just folks trying to write software that people want to buy. Gee, I guess
>> it worked! So sue us!
>
>I think one reason Microsoft is being sued is that Microsoft software does
>not compete on the merits of the software alone. Windows 3.0 was the
>first almost barely usable/tolerable version of Windows. I'm not a Mac
>fan, but if you look at something like the Amiga and AmigaOS from 1985, it
>was such a clearly better operating system and windowing system PC
>environment compared to Microsoft's offering that if Microsoft had to
>compete on technical merit alone, they would have been out of business
>weeks after the Amiga's introduction.
>
>To suggest that Microsoft's success is due to writing software that people
>*want* to buy is disingenuous. Microsoft's success is due solely to the
>monopoly IBM gave them in 1982. To their credit, Microsoft is only about
>five years behind the curve. If IBM had kept the monopoly to themselves,
>we'd all be closer to ten years behind the curve.
>
>-- Doug
>
>
