Whoops, Holy Grails of Classic PERSONAL Computer Collecting :)
I only put in "Micro" to leave out the PDP-1's, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Yowza [mailto:yowza@yowza.com]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 4:14 PM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: Re: Top 10 Holy Grails of Classic Microcomputer Collecting
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Kai Kaltenbach wrote:
> 2. Xerox Alto
Not a micro.
> 5. Kenbak-1
Not a micro.
> 10. IBM 5100
Not a micro.
You need three more :-)
-- Doug
Well, my whole Aquarius only cost $35 with mini-expander and 3 carts, so I
guess I'd go maybe $10 on a tape drive.
Kai
-----Original Message-----
From: David Williams [mailto:dlw@trailingedge.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 1:50 PM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: Aquarius Data Recorders
I just received an email from a local group which has 250 new in
box Aquarius cassette recorders. They are taking bids but I
suspect you can't just buy a few but would have to take the whole
lot. I have one but could use at least one more and maybe two and
it would be nice to have the box and any doc or cables. Is there
any interest in this out there? If so, how much would people be
willing to pay? Don't forget shipping costs. Let me know. BTW,
"local" in this case is Houston, TX.
-----
David Williams - Computer Packrat
dlw(a)trailingedge.com
http://www.trailingedge.com
Any news on the airtimes for the ZDTV and CNET pieces?
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ismail [mailto:dastar@ncal.verio.com]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 1998 9:50 PM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: VCF Press Clippings
Allow me to introduce you to my vanity:
http://www.vintage.org/vcf/press.htm
VCF press clippings for the past year or so.
Sam Alternate e-mail:
dastar(a)siconic.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
> In some respect the F8 was like many early parts in that the
< > CORE CPU was there but glue was needed to make it all work.
< > (8080/8224/8228 for example).
<
< Yes. Are you arguing that the 8080 is not a microprocessor?
Where did you get that idea from. It's a the idea that CPUs don't have
to be single chip to constitute a microprocessor/microcomputer.
The rest is stirring the pot to hear it clang.
Allison
< Don't you mean 1801R and 1801S? My early 18xx book doesn't list any 181
Both. Mine do, I have an unusual collection of RCA data books with alot
of their loose data sheets as well. I used to call on the RCA
microcomputer systems group down Somerville NJ.
Allison
> So would it be possible to come up with a group sanctioned list of
> definitions for:
> computer (generic)
> digital computer
> analog computer
> minicomputer
> microcomputer
> processor
> microprocessor
> mainframe
> Then when we all agreed on what the definition was we could argue 'firsts'
> with some sort of logical frame-work. As it is, the discussions read a lot
> like:
I think the problem is that it's impossible to find a singe and
_undisputed_ definition for any of the terms above. Even computer
isn't clear at all (just remember Raul Rojas' speak about the Z1),
not to mention this when is a microprocessor a microprocessor
discusion going thruout the list.
> No offense intended, my observation is that many discussions are running
> around in circles because the participants haven't agreed on their basic
> tenents yet.
Same for me, but if we follow the ongoing thread, it will be
visible, thats it's less about whats the first of wich ever
(unclear) kind, and more about vague concepts and the impact
of a certain design.
All this firsts and this-but-not-that things operate
at borderlines where are no real borders.
Maybe there is a 'Uncertainty Principle' of certain
'seem to be exact' terms. Like ordinary physiks, they
are usable for every day life, but when (we are) try
to define the very finest structur, we have to discover
that they are no more usable.
Gruss
H.
BTW: should I call it Frankes Uncertainty Principle of
Computer Terms ? (SCNR *g*)
(I meet Werner Heisenberg once in 1972 at a
speech at our school - quite an notable man.)
P.S.:
I like Sam's point about regarding unpretended tasks
AND is like Doug's idea about (technical/comercial)
impact. Both have their advantages and disadvantages,
but none can either be used as this blade everybody
wants to have, since there is no strict this-or-that.
I think both are to be considered. A concept without
without follow up is not relevant, and if we only look
for the (comercial) impact, so anything beside the x86
wouldn't be woth to be remembered ???
The true worth of this list is NOT to get this-or-that
thing, it's about aquiering and enhance knowledge on
all regarding fields, ideas, concepts, etc.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
< > So would it be possible to come up with a group sanctioned list of
< > definitions for:
< > computer (generic)
< > digital computer
< > analog computer
< > minicomputer
< > microcomputer
< > processor
< > microprocessor
< > mainframe
Pick up a dictionary and use it! These words have a definition that works
if used concisely.
Then we also need to get group santioned english. Part of the problem
is these are exacting terms that are often abused linguisticly.
After all it's easity to say X is first computer. Only to be corrected
because you didn't say analog, digital, mechanical, electrical, relay,
vacuum tube, transistor, integrated circuit, RTL, TTL, ECL, MOS, CMOS,
ad infinitum.
If this seems nitpicky consider this statement; The norden bomb sight,
an analog mechanical computer has it roots in what?
If that appears to be an exercise for the inane we are preserving, using,
trading, collecting and otherwise dealing with history and in
archeological terms what, where, when, who, how are other questions are
part of the story. Accuracy and minuniscule details are the essence of
an industry that in my lifetime went from the early commercial vacuum
tube machines to the 64bit CPU chip running some thousands of times
faster.
Allison
< Historical footnotes are always intresting, but it seems to me that to
< pronounce "the F15 CADC was first, not the Intel 4004" is a strawman. W
It is if you leave it at first and don't get any more specific than that.
the F14 CADC was the first microcomputer system that made fly by wire
practical. The 4004 was the first commercially viable single chip CPU.
Clear statments that do not conflict but do make a statment that points
to their significance.
< I'm not denying that Holt produced a CPU, and it may be important in th
< history of military computers. It is irrelevant in the history of the
< personal computer unless there was a personal computer designed that
< included it or a direct descendant.
Or the technology that made the silicon possible for later commercial
designs. It doesn't have to be the same design.
< I think it's great that Holt got his story out. Footnotes always add
< depth, but no chapters need to be rewritten.
The assuption is they are accurate chapters. ;) the depth is needed to
see how the later chapters are significant.
Allison
As I get deeper into collecting there are systems and docs I'd love to
find.
Ten of them in no special order.
1. Cincinatti Millichron 2000, 2100 or 2200 based mini.
2. Docs (or copies) for IMSAI IMP48
3. Intel MCS-8
4. Control Logic modules L series (for 8008 based system use).
5. and 8E/F/M or programmers pannel equipped 8A
6. Signetics 2650 based SBC
7. Intel prompt-48
9. DEC 8008 based SBC.
10. RCA 1801/18101 based system eveluation board. (1801 is not a typo).
Allison