You're right on the money with this assessment! I'm convinced of this
because when I look at the items you've listed I think, "goodness! Why
would anyone want that stuff?" while when I look at the pile of equally
esoteric S-100 stuff I have in the corner, I think of it as "good stuff"
which of course is a purely arbitrary judgment. I am not a collector and
have held onto my "stuff" for two reasons, which I think may be pretty
common in the world of computer "junk" ownership. (a) I bought the "stuff"
when it was current hardware and I needed or wanted it for some specific
purpose and still hope to squeeze the remaining value/utility out of it, and
(b) it's a daunting task sifting throught the "archive" to determine what
has to "go." This combines itself, quite naturally, I believe, into "Well,
one of these days . . ."
Auction prices would yield useful informaton IF . . . and only if. . . there
were a completed sale to go along with a set of finishing prices published
on the web. What's damaging to the usefulness of what we have now, e.g.
eBay, is that they allow an auction to run to completion, record the final
(winning) bid, and make no assertion whatever about whether the sale
actually happened. As a consequence, putting your goods up for auction on
eBay or Haggle is pretty chancy, as the only thing you're guaranteed of
getting is a bill. That leaves the observer with a big question mark where
an answer to the question of "What would someon give for this?" comes up.
In the meantime, I, a potential seller, sit here saying to myself, "All I
really want is for this stuff to GO AWAY!" When I advertise it as
available, I get all kinds of offers to "take it off my hands," which means
people will let me gather it up, package it, and ship it to them, on the
off-chance that they'll use it for something, provided, of course, that I
don't mind bankrolling the whole project, and what's always in the back of
my mind is "I wonder what (how much ) this stuff would bring at auction?"
If there were just a realistic way to find that out . . .
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: John Ruschmeyer <jruschme(a)hiway1.exit109.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, March 26, 1999 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: Seller's market
>> The point that seems to stick with me is that while some people complain
>> vigorously about the high prices on eBay, the prices don't seem to be
quite
>> high enough to get them to part with similar items they have. ie the
prices
>> are more than they wish to pay, but not what they would be willing to
sell
>> for.
>
>My vague feeling is that there is another, nebulous factor involved-
something
>akin to being purely mercenary versus wanting to see an item go to the
>"right" home (with "rightness" being defined by the owner). I think that
there
>is also a little of the dilemma that any speculator has- What is the best
>time to cash in.
>
>I know I'm guilty of the latter. For a while, I've been considering getting
>rid of a couple of my classics that I *never* get around to touching and,
>so, every once in a while, I find myself checking the prices on similar
>items, trying to decide if now is the time to go ahead and list them.
>
>For those who are wondering: the two I'm thinking of parting with are:
>
>1) Osborne 1, blue case, with DD controller and 80-column upgrade.
>
>2) Lisa 2/10, working, with original manuals (but disk copies). Also has
> a Sun Remarketing SCSI board and MacWorks Plus.
><<<John>>>
The information I got from eBay's site suggests that only 70% of the
auctions which are completed result in actual sales. What I get from this
is that nearly one in three auctions which result in a fee to eBay don't
result in a sale for the seller.
I would say that the items with "ridiculous" initial prices are not included
in this figure. That situation seems quite plausible to me, as there is no
means availailable for "forcing" a sale. The fact that someone bids doesn't
obligate them in any real way, nor does the fact that someone lists an item
for sale obligate them to sell it if the price isn't sufficient.
It seems quite plausible to me that an individual might overbid on an item
in order to "queer" the auction, running the price up to where no one would
pay that amount, irrespective of the value of the item being sold. This is
no different than publishins software with a virus, or spraying graffitti on
someone else's building. There's really no penalty.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Ford <mikeford(a)netwiz.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, March 27, 1999 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: Seller's market
>>Auction prices would yield useful informaton IF . . . and only if. . .
there
>>were a completed sale to go along with a set of finishing prices published
>>on the web. What's damaging to the usefulness of what we have now, e.g.
>>eBay, is that they allow an auction to run to completion, record the final
>>(winning) bid, and make no assertion whatever about whether the sale
>>actually happened. As a consequence, putting your goods up for auction on
>
>The completion rate figure I have seen for eBay is 70%. Out of that 30%
>that don't go through, a lot are from people who choose to list with high
>first bids, ala the guy who keeps about 100 auctions going all the time,
>each one for a single item like a hard drive sled, or a front bezel with a
>first bid amount of $9.95. Only about 20% of those items get any bids, and
>many sell with just a single bid. There are other equally harmless reasons
>items don't complete, but if you see half a dozen auctions for similar
>items, and each auction had a half a dozen different bidders, they final
>prices are about as good an indicator of fair market price as I expect you
>can find.
>
>If I am serious about an item, or the price seems odd on some of the
>auctions, I follow up and read the ads, or email the people. Many times
>prices differences are fully explained by condition or shipping costs
>revealed within the ad.
>
>
That "old" version of Windows had the infamous problems with SMARTDRV. I'd
suggest you proceed with caution.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Walker <lwalker(a)mail.interlog.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, March 27, 1999 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: Any interest in Windows/286?
On 26 Mar 99 at 20:42, Mark Gregory wrote:
> While browsing at one of my local thrifts, I found a large number (20+) of
> disk sets for Microsoft Windows/286. Each set seemed to be 3-4 disks
> (Setup, Build, Options, PC Paintbrush ... can't remember what else). There
> were no manuals, but the 5.25 disks seemed to be in good shape. Is anybody
> interested in these? If so, I can pick them up tomorrow and make them
> available to anybody who has a use for them. Let me know.
>
> Mark "Would have bought them on principle but didn't have the cash on me"
> Gregory
>
Mark, could you pick up a set for me. I've been looking to acquire a set
for some time.
Regarding Don's comment, He must have a different distribution since I
have a single disk labeled Windows 286 v 2.10 Setup, Build, and Displays 1
Disk and below diskette: 1 of 4 . It's a Microsoft A(merican) R(esearch)
C(oporation (sic)) disk .
I also have a 7 disk set of win 3.1. They're 1.2 megs. Possibly his is 360.
Both come up "unformatted" dialogue box in File Manager. I didn't try them
at
start-up lest I screw up my win set-up and I didn't have my win-less dos box
operating. Possibly also his set is built for install
ciao larry
lwalker(a)interlog.com
Hello, all:
I posted some more Altair schematics: the 8800 power supply, the 8800
Display/Control board, and the 8800 (display) Interface Card.
I have also scanned the remaining AIM65 manual (the User's Guide) and
will begin posting that shortly.
Enjoy.
[ Rich Cini/WUGNET
[ ClubWin!/CW7
[ MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
[ Collector of "classic" computers
[ http://highgate.comm.sfu.ca/~rcini/classiccmp/
[ http://highgate.comm.sfu.ca/~rcini/pdp11/
<---------------------------- reply separator
On Mar 26, 16:41, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> Subject: Re: Ohio Scientific Model 560Z CPU (PDP-8!)
> Yes, I believe you're right. It was a CMOS technology product at a time
> when such were less than common. There was a chaper devoted to it in the
> old Osborne book(s) about Microprocessors.
>
> I never saw one in a system, though.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Turnbull <pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com>
> >You're probably thinking of the Intersil 6100, which DEC actually used
> >themselves in at least one product.
I have one in a WPS78, which is a DECmate-type system, looks like a VT52
with a desktop RX01 unit, sold for office automation.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Does anyone recognize these items:
HP 9145: appears to be a cake-box size unit, with a cartridge tape drive
of some sort.
HP 98571X: probably a computer or some sort. has a expansion slot in back,
whatever was in teh slot has been removed. rs-232, HP-IB, HP-HIL,
thinnet connectors on back. Seagate sticker applied on side of
unit claims it is TEST EQUIPMENT, and is called HP 340 CPU serial
number 334.
PS: I may have a line on a pair of 3B2's (somethingorother/300), and the
base unit for an Amiga 2000.
-Lawrence LeMay
lemay(a)cs.umn.edu
Allison J Parent wrote:
> I don't believe OSI ever did a 6100 based design (por any other PDP-8
> compatable chip).
Well, they tried to market the idea anyway. I have the document
right here.
<Yes, I believe you're right. It was a CMOS technology product at a time
<when such were less than common. There was a chaper devoted to it in the
<old Osborne book(s) about Microprocessors.
It was one of the two CMOS cpus available early on, the 6100 (12bit PDP-8)
and the 180x (18xx pair or 1802 8bitters). it would be a while before eithe
would be edged out of the market.
<I never saw one in a system, though.
Intersil and Harris sold a single board, a tiny system and full development
systems for the 6100 series. I happen to have the intersil 6960 sampler
and would love to find a Intercept JR or an Intercept.
Allison
<> Subject: Re: Ohio Scientific Model 560Z CPU (PDP-8!)
<> Back in the old days, somebody or other, I'll look it up later (General
<> Instruments, I believe), made an LSI which was essentially compatible
<with
<> the PDP8-E.
GI never did the PDP-8 chip. Intersil and Harris (both 6100 and 6120)
I don't believe OSI ever did a 6100 based design (por any other PDP-8
compatable chip).
<You're probably thinking of the Intersil 6100, which DEC actually used
<themselves in at least one product.
Wps78 and DECmate series.
Allison
Yes, I believe you're right. It was a CMOS technology product at a time
when such were less than common. There was a chaper devoted to it in the
old Osborne book(s) about Microprocessors.
I never saw one in a system, though.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Turnbull <pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, March 26, 1999 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Ohio Scientific Model 560Z CPU (PDP-8!)
>On Mar 26, 13:14, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Ohio Scientific Model 560Z CPU (PDP-8!)
>> Back in the old days, somebody or other, I'll look it up later (General
>> Instruments, I believe), made an LSI which was essentially compatible
>with
>> the PDP8-E.
>
>You're probably thinking of the Intersil 6100, which DEC actually used
>themselves in at least one product.
>
>--
>
>Pete Peter Turnbull
> Dept. of Computer Science
> University of York
