test-drb June 1999

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

164 participants
610 discussions

Article about collecting in Antique Trader.

by Glenatacme＠aol.com

Hello Tony: In a message dated 6/30/99 2:31:07 PM EST, ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk writes: << Actually a ZX80. The 4K ROM is the clue - the ZX81 has an 8K ROM with a floating point BASIC. >> Well, duh on me -- I must have written that post in my sleep ;>) << I don't want to imply a direct technical link here. But it's clear that the Macintosh was influenced by the Lisa. And that Windows was influenced by the Macintosh. >> Can't argue with that. So the PERQ is to blame for Windows, right? ;>) << For better or worse, the GUI (in particular MS Windows) has a major influence on today's computing. More so than (IMHO) the influence of cheap home computers. In other words, had the ZX80, etc never existed (but keeping the IBM PC etc), then computing today wouldn't be that different. Had the PERQ/Dmachines, etc never existed, then things would most likely have been somewhat different. >> I largely agree with this statement. I think, though, that programmers such as myself who cut their teeth on 1K/2K machines learned to squeeze the maximum performance out a system, whereas folks who learned to program on a PC, using the flabby and bloated DOS & Windows platforms, generally don't care about conservation of system resources ("stuff some more RAM in it"), tightening up code ("use a faster processor"), etc. << Are you suggesting that if there hadn't been cheap home computers, then there wouldn't have been IBM PCs? I am not sure I can agree with that. >> Not for a moment -- I _am_ suggesting, however, that lots of people who couldn't afford a $5000 PC in 1982, or who didn't want to spend that much to "find out about computers," were able to have a usable computer at home years before most people. This allowed us to become familiar with computer concepts and programming without formal training. Other than the Timex/Sinclairs, what's the cheapest machine which was available in 1982 that I could have used to learn BASIC and assembler and machine code -- at home? << I am not convinced that it has 10 times the importance of the PERQ. And yet I see the (much more common) ZX81 selling for \pounds 50, and the ZX80 selling for \pounds 200. I've never heard of a PERQ sell for anything like that figure. >> If you know of anyone interested in a ZX81 for GBP 50, please let me know -- I can supply several hundred at this price -- assembled and tested. ;>) << The other point is that the PERQ had features which a lot of people don't believe existed in 1980. Things like a high-resolution bitmapped display. Like a pointing device. These, I agree, didn't exist on home computers of the time. So if home computers are all that's seriously collected, then history is being distorted because many such features will appear far too late. >> On the other hand, if tons of people suddenly decide they want to collect PERQs (PDPs, ancient IBMs, or whatever), then the price goes way up and that diminishes the opportunities for folks like yourself to obtain one. << I would seriously argue that you'll learn a lot more about CPU opertion from a minicomputer processor (or a PERQ :-)) than you ever will from a micro.... >> No doubt about it, Tony, but in 1982 I couldn't buy a PERQ or a mini for $100!!! My choice at the time was a crap little computer -- or no computer at all! << Machine A : PERQ 1a , second version of first commercial workstation, typical price <\pounds 10.00 >> Seriously? GBP 10 ???? Hmm, maybe it's not too late for me to see the error of my ways . . . ;>) << Machine B : Sinclair ZX80, 1st machine < \pounds 100 when it came out, typical price >\pounds 100 now. I am not going to mention which I consider to be the techincally better machine, or which I'd rather own. >> Of course you're not -- the ZXs rule! ;>) << I am still convinced, though that the PERQ, and other workstations, have a more important influence on today's computers than the cheap home micros do >> Perhaps, but for 1000s of us the Timex/Sinclairs kick-started our careers and our interest in computers in general. There are 1000s of _active_ users of these machines still out there today. If you doubt it, do web a search on "ZX81" or "ZX Spectrum." Regards, & thanks for your insight, Glen Goodwin 0/0

25 years, 5 months

Article about collecting in Antique Trader.

by Glenatacme＠aol.com

Hello Philip: Thanks very much for the explanation. There are certainly a lot of factors involved in determining the "value" and "collectibility" of computers. Target market, production numbers, public perception, etc. I have a sentimental "soft spot" re the Timex/Sinclair machines . . . so I would collect them regardless of perceived "value." In a message dated 6/30/99 4:18:39 AM EST, Philip.Belben(a)pgen.com writes: << But what we observe is that people preserve ZX80s because of their market significance - the first sub-100-pound computer (not that it was, of course), the first home computer for non-enthusiasts (hardly that, for that matter) or whatever. And ignore other machines, simply because they are insufficiently educated. Result, ZX80s fetch premium prices, and Perqs go for a song, thus reinforcing the perceived significance of the former relative to the latter. >> What was the first sub-100-pound computer (MK14??) << Yes, those ZX81 cases make excellent door wedges, don't they ;-) >> Can't beat 'em! Thanks, Glen 0/0

25 years, 5 months

8T97 == 74367 ??

by bill＠chipware.com

Are these two parts equivalent: 74367AN and N8T97N Thanks, Bill

25 years, 5 months

Article about collecting in Antique Trader.

by Philip.Belben＠pgen.com

> In a message dated 6/29/99 6:14:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Tony Duell > writes: > >> This means the history of computing is being distorted. Truely important >> machines are being forgotten. Other machines, much less significant, are >> being remembered. This is not a good thing. >> >> OK, let me ask a very simple question. I will give below the >> specification of 2 machines, both from around 1980. The questions are : >> Which do you think is the more historically important, and which one >> would fetch a higher price (Oh, and would anyone care to name the 2 >> machines :-)) >> >> OK. Machine A : >> >> Processor : Custom 16/20 bit CPU. Graphics processor. Z80-A for I/O >> >> RAM : 1Mbyte >> >> Storage : 8" floppy disk, 24Mbyte hard disk >> >> Keyboard : Full QWERTY keyboard, Keytronics >> >> Display : Bitmapped display, 768*1024 pixels (portrait monitor) >> >> Mouse : Sumagraphics Bit Pad 1 >> >> Languages : Pascal, LISP, etc >> >> Comments : Version of the first commercially-sold graphics workstation >> >> >> Machine B : >> >> Processor : Z80A >> >> RAM : 1Kbyte >> >> Storage : Sockets to connect optional audio cassette recorder >> >> Keyboard : QWERTY membrane keyboaard >> >> Display : Text (22*23 or something like that), block graphics. Disappears >> when program running >> >> Mouse : You must be joking >> >> Languages : 4K ROM containing strange (integer only?) BASIC. >> >> Comments : Very inexpensive home computer > > Machine B is very obviously a Sinclair ZX80 or ZX81. Pardon my confusion, > but are you saying that the ZX80/81 was "much less significant?" Perhaps I > misunderstand. Machine B is a ZX80 from Tony's description. Machine A seems to be a Perq 2T2, but I may be wrong. > Millions of people worldwide were introduced to computers by these machines > (and their Timex cousins). Because of the low price, people bought them to > see if they "liked computing" -- if not, they could throw them away and only > be out $100 or so. > > On the other hand, many, like myself, found they had a small talent for > working with computers -- in whatever capacity -- and thus found employment, > careers, and satisfaction because of their initial experience with > Timex/Sinclair computers. There is significance and significance, unfortunately. Tony seems to be concerned about the distortion of history, and I strongly sympathise. Let me digress by telling you a story. A week or two ago I had a rep call from the bank to advise me about investments (refreshingly candid - "%Bank has a lot of cash at the moment, so you won't get a good rate by putting your money as cash in the bank"). When we sat down at the one free corner of table, he noticed my mechanical calculator (Facit) and asked me what it was. I demonstrated, and he was amazed - he had no idea that any such devices had existed before the electronic pocket calculator. This is the distortion of history. People, used to modern computers with impressive specs and mediocre performance under W*****s, have no idea how much could be done by the technology of even 10 years ago, let alone 19 years ago (the date of those two machines). If they see the ZX80 as typical computers of 1980, they will continue to think that PCs with Windows were the first serious personal computers (by some definition - someone on this list posted a URL the other day that claims personal computer == home computer). If they see Perqs as typical computers of 1980, they will think no wonder nobody had a computer at home 20 years ago! To present a balanced view, we need to preserve both ends of the market. Both are significant, the Perq from a technology point of view and the ZX80 from a market point of view, so from the point of view of significance, one ought to see both attract the same price. The Perq is rarer, so perhaps rarity value would push the Perq up a bit. But what we observe is that people preserve ZX80s because of their market significance - the first sub-100-pound computer (not that it was, of course), the first home computer for non-enthusiasts (hardly that, for that matter) or whatever. And ignore other machines, simply because they are insufficiently educated. Result, ZX80s fetch premium prices, and Perqs go for a song, thus reinforcing the perceived significance of the former relative to the latter. Result: history is distorted, because people see the ZX80 as a typical machine, not as the bottom end of a highly varied market. >> I think that if you own a classic computer you should learn how it works, >> how to use it, how to repair it, etc. Note, I am _NOT_ saying that you >> have to be qualified (after all, I'm not). I am not saying that you have >> to know everything before you start. I am saying, though, that you should >> want to learn. > > The TS computers' simple but clever architecture encouraged learning all the > "how to's" you mention above. Sorry, Tony, I must agree with Glen here. Sinclair did not go to the trouble that Apple and Microsoft have since expended to separate the user from the nitty-gritty of how the machine works. The Sinclair is a far better machine to learn on than a PC clone, say. (Hey, it even has a programming language as standard...) Cheap and nasty, perhaps, but a real computer nonetheless. (Not that I particularly want one...) > > But, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying . . . > > So: what are these two computers? Which is the most historically important, > and, in your opinion, which would fetch a higher price? Well, you have my opinion - equal on significance, Perq higher priced through rarity value. I will now stand back and let others have their say. > > BTW, I use my Timex/Sinclair computers for some purpose at least five days > out of seven. Yes, those ZX81 cases make excellent door wedges, don't they ;-) Philip.

25 years, 5 months

HP3000

by ss＠allegro.com

Re: > Here is some more detail on the HP 3000. > > Front panel says its a series 950, about a dozen boxes of manuals (looks > like it may have been running unix), and the salvage guy is looking for at The second PA-RISC machine from HP. The HP-UX version is the HP 9000/850. The MPE (not UNIX) version is the HP 3000/950. So, if it says 950, it started life as an MPE machine. Note, however, that the hardware was basically identical. HP-UX would easily boot and run on the 950. (The opposite wasn't true due to MPE checking to see if the machine was officially capable of running MPE ... shows that HP valued MPE more than HP-UX :) It's a 6.5 MHz machine. Stan

25 years, 5 months

IMSAI 8080 (our show so far...)

by bill＠chipware.com

> Also where did you get that one... The description of the hacked front > pannel sounds familiar to two I've seen. I'd rather not say :) But on the hacks note... Digging through the binders I got with it, I have found: 1) Front panel assembly instructions. The 16 pin cable is installed on the correct side of the board (not on the component side). However interpretation of pin one is vague. I quote: CP-A TO MPU-A INSTALLATION 30) Using the 16 conductor ribbon cable with 16 pin 3M dual inline connectr, insert one end into the hole pattern U2 from the back side of the CP-A board so that it can be soldered from the front (component side) of the CP-A board. The cable should be mounted so that it extends upward from the top of the chassis when the board is mounted. End quote. Which end of the cable you choose to solder to the CP-A will changed the orientation of the red (pin 1) stripe. 2) Not schematics, but drawings of the trace layouts, front and back. This allows me to ID the panel as a CPA REV.4. The actual label with the IMS Assoc. etc. is on the component side, hidden under the metal bar that supports the switches. 3) Modification instructions. This allows me to identify two of the modifications: One is a DRAM mod, apparently changing how S-100 pin 71 is interpreted. This mod is given the number: ECN 77-0039. The other is a change to the behavior of the one-shots (74123s) to prevent spurious triggering while in RUN mode. This mod is given the number: ECO 77-0098. There is a third modification to this panel which involves the lower right 7400 when viewed from the component side (labeled U25 in the drawing I have). Thanks, Bill

25 years, 5 months

New member, New machine

by andyl＠azaal.dircon.co.uk

Hi, I have just rejoined this list (I have joined in the past but somehow I was removed from the list earlier in the week). Anyway the reason I am mailing is that I have just been given the chance to take home a decomissioned Meiko CS2 from work. It wask working upto a couple of weeks ago, but has recently been moved and will not come back up again. The person who supervised the move re-seated all the boards, but did not try and in depth investigation. I am very positive that I will resurrect it. Hopefully I will be able to take it away (software and manuals included). For those who don't know about the Meiko - it is supposed to be a massively parallel architecture based around SPARC processors, and runs a modified version of Solaris. I know that this is probably a bit recent to be classed as a classic at the moment, however I believe it will become one in the future as it is relatively rare, Meiko never produced that many, British, and an interesting machine. BTW the machine I am talking about is mentioned on meiko's website at http://www.meiko.co.uk/info/CorporateOverview.html. Also don't get carried away by the story of the Lawrence Livermore Labs having an 800 module (processor?) system, this is nowhere that size. -- Andy Leighton => andyl(a)azaal.dircon.co.uk "... January is your third most common month for madness" - _Sarah Canary_

25 years, 5 months

Going out of contact...

by review＠RyansPC.ryanspc.com

Hi. Just to let everyone know, I'll be going out of contact from next Tuesday to sometimne in late July or early August. I'll be unsubscribed to the list, but if there's anything you need to say to me, I can be reached at tim(a)thereviewguide.com. Ciao, Tim

25 years, 5 months

HP3000

by mikeford＠netwiz.net

>> HP3000 fresh from some local gov agency was sitting in the salvage joint >> yesterday. About the size of a side by side washer and dryer, email me for >> details. Location was Fullerton, CA... Here is some more detail on the HP 3000. Front panel says its a series 950, about a dozen boxes of manuals (looks like it may have been running unix), and the salvage guy is looking for at least a couple hundred bucks. From past experience I know this system won't hang around as soon as the space gets short. I don't really want to be in the middle of the transaction, but the salvage guy doesn't like dealing with end users, has no technical knowledge of the system (hence would only get annoyed with tech questions). Also if a couple people were to call about the system, the price would go up. What is needed are a truck and bucks asap. Whoever can manage those items first and best I will put in direct contact with the salvage guy and then get out of the way.

25 years, 5 months

FW: Free: Falco serial terminal, IBM network adapters, Touch screen assembly

by kyrrin＠bluefeathertech.com

Those in the Seattle area may want to check this out. Personally, I've got all the terminals I need. -=-=- <break> -=-=- On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:29:22 GMT, in seattle.forsale.computers you wrote: >>The following hardware is available for anyone that can make use of it. >>Condition unknown, but probably usable. >> >>1 Falco serial terminal - for your linux machine? >> >>5 Never used "IBM network adapters" - these were 1st generation boards, use >>"TV" type cable connections. Other "used" ones are available if you answer >>soon. >> >>1 Touch screen assembly - this is a device which is installed in from of a >>monitor (14 inch?) It scans a beam over the screen using a motorized mirror. >>When your finger breaks the beam, a signal may be timed to determine the >>location. >> >>1 mono monitor >> >>1 fixed frequency 640 X 480 open frame monitor >> >>Next stop - the dump - if no one wants these items. Give me your phone # and >>e-mail address in your reply. >> >>Bob >>trader(a)theheadoffice.com >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Bruce Lane, Owner and head honcho, Blue Feather Technologies -- kyrrin (at) bluefeathertech [dot] com Web: http://www.bluefeathertech.com "...No matter how we may wish otherwise, our science can only describe an object, event, or living thing in our own human terms. It cannot possibly define any of them..."

25 years, 5 months

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
61
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb June 1999