In message <02440020302929(a)michianatoday.com> classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu writes:
> At 08:59 AM 6/27/97 BST, you wrote:
> >> I do use my old machines now and then, but if anyone here has never ran a
> >> modern MAC or PC, they have NO idea what is bieng missed. web pages in full
> >> photo quality color, realistic games, PPP connections, Realaudio etc. I am
> >
> >I have used 'modern' PC's (well, at least pentiums with 16 MBytes RAM,
> >SVGA card, etc), and I know I'm not missing _anything_ by sticking to
> >classic computers. Let's go through your points.
> >
> What I mean is that we must realize that there is only so much you can do
> with classic computers. after all, if they were the best than why we have
> faster and better?
And there's only so much you can do with PC's :-)
Seriously, It's obvious that the _real_ top end today is faster than the top
end 10 years ago. It's also obvious that the 'home computer' of today (which
is probably a pentium PC) is better than the home computer of 10 eyars ago
(say a Commodore 64). But it's not at all obvious that the home computer of
today is any better than a 10 year old top-end personal workstation or a
minicomputer, or a number of other things. And those are turning up very
cheaply if you know where to look.
>
> >'Web pages in full photo quality colour'. Well, I access the web to get
> >information, not look at pretty pictures. Most of the information I want
> >is _text_, or at least monochrome graphics (things like IC data sheets).
> >So I don't need 'photo quality colour'. And if I did, I could easily find
>
> well at the moment you dont need it, but its nice to know that you can see
> it when you need it.
I don't necessarily buy hardware on the grounds that I _might_ need the
facilities one day. As what I already have does all I need, then I see no
reason to upgrade (downgrade?)
And if I did ever need to display a 'photo-quality' image, I can find a few
systems around here (all over 10 years old) that could do it trivially.
> >a classic system that could display them. Evans and Sutherland, Grinnell,
> >Ramtek, I2S, PPL, etc all made high-res colour displays that make most
> >PC's look like toys. And you can pick one up second-hand for less than an
> >SVGA card + monitor.
>
> SVGA a toy? I used many an apple ][ + and C=64 with 80 col RGB monitors, and
Compared to the machines I've named, SVGA is a toy...
> I can take only so much eyestrain. sharp graphics make your eyes feel good...
This, alas shows how little you know about the state of graphics 10 years ago
Give me a break. I am _NOT_ talking about home micros. I am talking about
professional graphics displays with hardware anti-alliasing of displayed
objects. I am talking about 512*512*30 bit images. I am talking about
broadcast-quality TV images (if you should need to go to such a low scan
rate). I am talking about 3D displays with LCD spectacles. Etc, Etc, Etc.
I've had more than my fair share of eyestrain from impossible-to-converge
SVGA monitors. I've battled with the service manuals for _hours_ on some of
them and not been able to get the convergence right. I'm then pleased that
Barco, Fimi, Sony (the older ones at least), Philips, Moniterm, KNE, etc, etc,
etc did make decent, easy-to-set-up monitors 10 years ago or more.
[...]
> >we had good quality audio on PDP11's (thanks to a little board from 3RCC)
> >in 1976. It's not exactly hard to add a DAC and a DMA engine or even a DSP
> >to a lot of classic computers (and classic computer != cheap home micro so
> >there's easily enough RAM space for a reasonable length sample).
>
> to me, a PDP11 is WORLDS apart from classic HOME computers, If I had the
> fortune of actually owing a PDP11, I would use it extensively..... :)
AFAIK, this is a classic computers list, and not a classic home computers list
Anyway the PDP11 is a home computer now. I know dozens of people who run
one or more at home.
I've payed a lot less for any of my PDP11's that you'd pay for a pentium
motherboard + CPU. That's complete PDP11's with disks, realtime I/O,
terminals, graphics options, SCSI interfaces, etc, etc, etc.
> >for most modern machines
> >Repairability. I can fix classic computers with no problem at all. Just
> I have never had any hardware failures in ANY of my machines so far (knock
> on silicon), with the exception that I accidentally cooked a 6526.
>
Maybe I've been unlucky, but I have had hardware failures.
> >try getting a custom chip for a PC motherboard. And don't tell me to
> >replace the motherboard - if the PC is a few years old I'd probably have
> >to replace the CPU and memory as well.
>
> that is just the ticket. A brand new 486 motherboard cost $90. with it you
> get real functionality.
Wait a second. ISA graphics cards are already getting hard to find. So,
presumably, if I have a not-too-old PC with an ISA graphics card and some
custom chip dies, I have to buy a PCI graphics card, a new motherboard,
a new processor, and either new memory or some SIMM converters. No thanks -
I'll stick to my classics where repairing consists of picking up the service
manual, finding the dead chip in about 10 minutes, and replacing it with one
>from either my junk box of the local electronics shop.
> actually, you can get a decent modern PC together just by scrounging
> computer shows and bargaining for parts. assembling a system from scratch
> with old parts is very fun and rewarding. and the reliablity rate for modern
> chips is very high. in fact the monitor or hard disk probably will die
I've had modern custom chips fail for 'no good reason'.
> before the motherboard will.
Monitors can often be repaired for a lot less than the cost of a new one.
Yes, the motherboard will probably outlast the hard disk, but that's
(IMHO) because modern hard disks are darn unreliable (I've had several
die on me, and without a clean room there's not a lot I can do). That doesn't
mean the motherboard won't fail, though.
-tony
> BUT-
> viewing a photo on a CRT in 16 million colors is still 100% better than
> having only 16 colors...<G>
There was a thing that came out in 1979/1980 called an I2S model 70 image
processor. It used (in at least one configuration) _30_ bits per pixel,
although only at a resolution of 512*512 pixels.
If you're only used to home micros I can understand why you think old machines
can't display 'photo-quality' images, but there were plenty of larger machines
that are now turning up second-hand at prices that collectors can afford that
have significant graphics abilities.
-tony
>
>
> It came out approx at the same time as the Atari 400/800 series
> (78-79?)
>
> I remember seeing an ad on it and the heading of the ad was
> "imagination machine".
Mattel?
Great idea to include peripherals. Never thought of that.
I would rather you see a sample of the book before making a purchase
decision. Please reply with your postal address and I send a few pages -
don't have scanned copies for faxing or emailing.
Kevin Stumpf
> Here's an interesting idea, now that mini Linux seems to be up and
> running, there appears to be a good code base for porting it over to othe
> old 8 bit and 16 bit chips. The TI-99/4a, RS COCO, PDP-11, and old S-100
> based z80 (with MMU) boxes appear to be good candidates. Yes... there is
UZI unix was on the z80 already so it's doable.
> Yes yes yes yes. SVGA is a *TOY* compared to what was available
> to those with million dollar budgets 20 years ago. The old hardware ran
> slower in clock speed but was most certainly capable of *extream* high
By 1986 1280x1024 color was about $25k and small (allowing for the 19"
monitor). MicrovaxII/gpx... now you can find them in dumpsters.
> PDP-11 hardware is still widely available. You could build
> youself a functinal Qbus LSI-11/73 or 83 for less than $500 easy. Most o
> this hardware is sitting in old factories and still in production. There
> are many hardware outlets out there such as ELI in cambridge MA, which
At $500 I'd have a killer PDP11. Most of mine are scrap/salvage or trades.
I'm letting a PDP11/23b go for very little as I have one and they are common
enough and powerful enough to run multiuser OS or one of the unixes out
there.
> ;-) You might also want to think of a decent used microVAX.... wonderful
> machine based on the same Qbus.
I got a working vs2000 from someone elses dumpster trip so they are common
and they can do eithernet, PPP, 1280x1024 graphics (color was an option),
6-16mb of ram in a 1cuft box witha 160w powersupply (small PC!). The real
trick is getting a disk (rd54 was the largest supported at 150mb) as SCSI
is there but not bootable other than DEC tk50 tape. The other problem is an
OS though DEC has made VMS6.1 available with a free license, compared to VMS
DOS is a toy! There are people doing a netBSD for it as well.
Other boxsized vaxen are 3100 and friends most being very high performance
(2.5-3VUP, a 780=1VUP).
larger MicrovaxII configs are common and generally free to cheap and most of
the same thing apply save for bigger. Even the BA123 boxed VAXen are under
500w in practice, since most pcs are in the 230-270 watt range it's not as
bad as it would seem. Other small vaxen in the "Sbox" incluude the 3400,
3500. they are faster and still pre-1990..
The older Vax 780/1/2/5 systems are three good sized racks plus and serious
power. The later smaller (slower) 730s are one to two short (40") racks
and under 1000w for mall configs (save 1 or 2 ra80/81 disks). RA81 is 200mb
IMS. The next faster was the 750 and that can also run on household power
but, just barely.
Allison
PANASONIC HANDHELD UPDATE:
This is the latest message from Mike who has the hundreds of Panasonic
HandHeld computers. In case its not obvious what's going on, I put in an
offer of $10 each for 50, $9 each for 100, $8 each for 150, etc. I don't
have $2000 lying around with which to buy them all up. I have a plan,
but first read what Mike had to say:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 10:39:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mikeooo1(a)aol.com
To: dastar(a)crl.com
Subject: Re: EPROM Burners re: Classic Computers
Dear Sam,
I believe the total number of HHC's available will be about 400.Based on
your offer I assume that for 150 of the units you would be willing to pay at
the rate of $10 for the first 50,$9 for the next 50, $8 for the next 50 and
$7 for the next 50 whcih would come to $1700 for 200 units.Would you be
interested in 300 units for $2000 even?To make the offer even sweeter I'll
throw in the memory expander trays with each unit.The cost for each tray
alone was well over $100 when they were purchased,as well as a quantity of
the MCM 68674 8K eprom chips that the programs were written on.
As always Best Regards,
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
END FORWARD
So here's my plan...anyone and everyone who is interested, reply to ME
(do not reply to classiccmp! People will hate you and want to drown your
pets!) telling me how many you want. Do this soon. I will save all of
your e-mails and then at the end of say, 10 days I will tally up the
total and make Mike an offer. So again...
Reply to ME only (dastar(a)crl.com)
Tell me HOW MANY of the Panasonic HandHeld Computers you want.
Do it SOON.
You have about 10 days.
Price will be NO MORE THAN $10 EACH.
I'll get back to everyone in 10 days or so.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
OK guys, here is a request I got, maybe someone can help this poor guy!
Thanks,
Les
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 08:26:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: KenpoKidJB(a)aol.com
To: more(a)camlaw.Rutgers.EDU
Subject: software
hey, i went to your web site, but didn't find what i wanted. i'm looking for
dos 2.11 programs that will run off of a 3.5" floppy. most specifically, i'm
especially looking for games. any kind will do, but even more specifically,
i'm looking for text driven adventure games, as my kaypro 2000 LCD screen
doesn't do very well with graphics!! so, let me know what you can do for
me.. i really appreciate it.
Jeremiah
I wonder if anybody here has the *exact* months of introduction of the
three first *real* home computers introduced in 1977:
a) the Apple II
b) the Tandy TRS-80
c) the Commodore Pet
I need them for a book on collecting home computers I am researching
for.
Thank you
enrico
--
================================================================
Enrico Tedeschi, 54, Easthill Drive, BRIGHTON BN41 2FD, U.K.
tel/fax +(0)1273 701650 (24 hours) or 0850 104725 mobile
website <http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~e.tedeschi>
================================================================
visit Brighton: <http://www.brighton.co.uk/tourist/welcome.htm>
Well some of my collection gets a good workout. The most notable is
the Commodore 64 running my BBS, the Silicon Realms, which has been
on-line for just over 10 years using 64s (this is the second 64, before
it the BBS was running on my then only 64 and my 128 for a while, all
the original computers still work.) I would say that this BBS is
probably one of the most stable low-end BBSs it can run litterally for
weeks (it is networked to other boards, mind you) without nary a crash.
Nowadays I can bump my commie BBS to 14.4k and have a 20mghz
accelerator to keep up with the big bards, but alot of that stuff isn't
considered classic yet...
Across the room (more like spin around in the chair) is the 128,
which I still use to program stuff on as well as create disks for people
and stuff, lately it has seen increased use.
A PET and a couple 64s made it out of storage for my last BBS
gathering and helped entertain attendees. (Many of the IBM gamers
fondly remembered and played on the 64s for a while.) I think I'll
bring more classics to future ones, (I hope to have asteroids for the
Atari by then, it has a 4-player game option).
------------
Currently most of the Commodore 64/128 users on the internet are
using terminals and connecting via provider's shell-accounts.
There is a version of SLIP for the Commodore and also a HTML viewer
(off-line from what I gather), but more and more word on bigger and
better things coming "real soon now". The Wave, a terminal for the GEOS
environment is supposed to have text HTML viewing capabilities, graphics
is a pretty big hurdle for our little machines, it's not in the size per
se (images can be scaled down), but in the volume of processing these
huge image files will require, many of which are 2 to 5 times our
computer's memory! But that never stopped the determined hacker.
Larry Anderson
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Visit our web page at: http://www.goldrush.com/~foxnhare/
Call our BBS (Silicon Realms BBS 300-2400 baud) at: (209) 754-1363
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
> a digital microvax ][
I assume you man a MicroVAXII, only apple used the ][.
> it's big. i thought a ps2 model 80 was big, but this eclipses it. not test
> yet, but i need info on what it is, what it did, and is it worth keeping?
Ba23, ba123 or ba213 box? There were also the 1cuft vaxen (vs2000).
IF you think the vax was big the 21" color monitor dwarfed it!
> being used to the pc world i didnt see monitor/keyb connections. should i
> an ascii terminal to conenct to it to use it? it has a door on the front w
> something behind it (tape?) but it's locked down. if anyone can point me t
> faq id be grateful.
Around back of the unit. Depending on version it was terminal
(vt100/220/320...) or vr290/320 monitor mouse and keyboard.
Allison
> I have a book about marketing, written by a Tandy VP which has a large
> chapter on the birh of the TRS-80. He mentioned the day of the first
> produced unit, (sept 15th I think) and game totals for the first months
> or two (It seemed they only managed 3 computer a day for the first week
> or two).
The august/september was the dates!. Also the first few months were a
learning experience for TANDY ftworth as they didn't know how to properly
handle mos devices, inline QC and do testing non destructively. The early
yeilds were horrendously low! The dry air and mishandling ment most of the
mos and much ttl were no good by time the were in the board or were killed
on the board. I vaguly remember saying when I saw the way things were beign
done "you have got to be kidding!" and several people stated investigating
ESD procedure and manufacturing QC.
Allison
> A microVAX or any of the VAXEN is NOT a home computer. I know that PC's
> were not the first ones to do it and never claimed it, and what I am talki
Define home computer? In the early days of PCs(xt class) pro350s, PDP11
with color graphics and hard disk. These were single user multitasking
systems in the same price range asna loaded xt.
> about is the person who still uses his apple ][, and has never touched
> anything else, saying everything else is junk. sure a Mini workstation ca
> do it, no question about it, but I *KNOW* that a kaypro, apple ][+ C=64,
> coleco ADAM, 8 bit Ataris and other HOME computers of that era CAN'T handl
Thein lies my point. These were the low end of the spectrum, low cost and
performance at the low end of the spectrum for what the cpu used could do.
Though the apple was one of the better ones.
Really, an ADAM and interestig machine uses a z80 it was slow compared to
many due to how it was implemented. Same for many others. C64s/128 are
fast machines... throttled to slow by a slow serial link to the disk. Every
one of those machines were interesting but crippled perfomance wise.
Granted often it was done for cost reasons. Even the kaypro, while fairly
fast has the slowest screen on the planet. I say that lovingly as I have one
but while it can transfer files at 9600 if it writes to screen 2400 may be
too fast.
This is not an inditement of their collectability or other interesting ideas
they brought forward. It is a cold assessment of their performance when
measured against their respective CPU standards (1980 z80-4mhz, 6502-2mhz,
6800-2mhz, 6809-2mhz, ti9900-3.3mhz, 8086/8-5mhz...) and what they could do
when run at that performance level. So when you say the ti99/4a was to slow
to do real IP or multiuser(acceptably) it was the TI99/4a not the 9900 cpu
or other 9900 designs which could.
Allison
> lynx is nice, as I use it for fast FTP, but when I read about a PDP11, it
> nice to see a picture of one, rather just text.
Most people were running altairs and the like in 78... I was a friend
started with one in '76. But in 78 he decided a H-11 bas a better deal.
H-11 was a DEC LSI-11 cpu card with heathkit made boards around them that
were DEC look alikes and a OS that was RT-11 look alike. All of a sudden
minies weren't too big or out of range.
> everyone forgets is that having limited memory is a pain,
> and TCP/IP alone uses 64K in ONE SOCKET ALONE as a buffer.
That was true even of most PDP-11s. What the -11 (most minies) had
were more efficient IO even if it was floppies.
> You have a good point there, and it would work sorta, but patience runs th
> after awhile, as decoding images at 1 MHZ does take 1 min, times that wit
> 10 or so inlines you will find at every web page, and waiting 10 mins for
This is a problem for me with the 486dx/50 and 33.6 modem. Most fo the
images unless compressed really do not require much processing (GIFs).
> its not about apps, its about efficincy, and operator comfort. VGA or SVG
> is worth it becuse it prevents eyestrain, and you can use your system for
> longer amounts of time. I used color TV's before when I got started, and
> serious word processing was painful to the eyes. RGB's are better, but no
I've been using h-19s, vt100s for years to get past the TV displays that
generally are low res.
> by much. also its about speed. The ability to cut and paste is underrated
> as in serious work, it saves gobs of time. I love command line interfaces
I could cut and past using editors for cp/m back in '80. Cut and past is an
editing feature not a system capability. PCs running windows make it latent
on the screen all of the time, thats the difference.
When some one said a home machine in say...'80 it was appleII, trs80, S100
or SS50(6800/6809). At that time people that had PDP-8s, -11s, DG novas
were scarce. By '86 most of the minies were old and getting accessable
cheap and not all were large either!. Move to 1990, people are collecting
vaxes (the 780 was new in '78) as most of the 7xx series systems were going
to junk. the 730s/750s though slow were small enough to consider for a
home. What's forgotten is by 1990 a lot of stuff was over 5-10 years old.
Now in 1997, microvaxes (ca 1986-7) are for dumpster diving and these little
gems are not slow nor are they under powered and they had VGA or better
capabilities and they are collectable.
Now what you said is true of many systems. I'd never try to run a modem
program on my TI99 at faster than 1200 as it will not keep up. Then again
it was by the standards of the time very very slow! It was neat. My systems
for the late '70s were s100 for flexibility and speed. I found myself
looking at canned systems like TRS80, apple and felt most fo the time like I
was running a fuel dragster compared to that. But I was running networks
and the like in '81 because I knew of them and could design my own to save a
buck (they existed for home computers but were expensive). I got my first
PDP-11 in '83 for FREE because the lsi-11 boards and memory were old! It
was my first save! The -11 introduced me to small minies, and big
performance. Some required a scope and series debugging to get them going
but the cost offset that (free). It would be years (1991) before PCs would
eclipse the power of the various PDP-11s (many of the 11/23 design) and the
software maturity behind it.
Many computer consumers knew they wanted performance. It was minies
where more could be found. I'd point out that many of the minies were
disguised. Alpha Microsystems(ca 1977) had the same chip set as the LSI-11
with a slightly different instruction set modification and was s100, still
the same capability. There was the Western Digital Pascal Microengine,
Marinechip (PDP-11 in s100), pdt-11/150, Pro350 to name a few that were
either pre-pc or on the PC introduction cusp.While home computing was
commodores and apples and trs80 they were the appliance machines for many.
There was always a core of those that felt they were nice and had good
ideas but, they wanted more.
Allison
Well, I see some rumblings in the group about archiving (among other
things) EPROMs and other such chips.
I think it's a great idea! I will assist as much as I can, considering
that I certainly have the equipment for it (Data I/O UniSite, current rev).
I can read or program just about anything that comes in a DIP package that
is programmable to begin with (including PALs if the security fuse isn't
blown).
In other news... A Scrounging I Will Go! I'm off to the Bay Area as of
Saturday next week (the 5th) for a major see-what's-changed trip, to say
nothing of hitting two swap meets (Livermore and Foothill) and seeing what
other kinds of trouble I can get into.
Sam, watch for an E-mail. I'd like to get in touch with you when I hit the
area. For those who have visited my web page, I'll be giving the scrounging
section a major facelift and update after I get back.
Caveat Emperor!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Sysop, The Dragon's Cave BBS (Fidonet 1:343/272)
(Hamateur: WD6EOS) (E-mail: kyrrin(a)wizards.net)
http://www.wizards.net/technoid
"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..."
i need some help on what i found this weekend.
a trs80 model III 48k. came with trsdos disk, but i havent tested it yet.
can anyone point to a source of software. now i need a model ][ to fill in
the blanks!
a digital microvax ][
it's big. i thought a ps2 model 80 was big, but this eclipses it. not tested
yet, but i need info on what it is, what it did, and is it worth keeping?
being used to the pc world i didnt see monitor/keyb connections. should i get
an ascii terminal to conenct to it to use it? it has a door on the front with
something behind it (tape?) but it's locked down. if anyone can point me to a
faq id be grateful.
there was plenty of xt's and the old pc peripheral expansion unit i might get
also.
total cost <$20.
david
Recently I got a SyQuest SQ555 Removable drive (44mb/SCSI) for free. I
have been looking for cartridges that fir this drive but so far no luck.
(Well, I did find one place that still sold them but they wanted $40 a
piece for 'em). If anyone knows of a cheap(er) place to get these babies,
please let me know!
Thanks,
les
more(a)crazy.rutgers.edu
> going for a while. I don't know that Dr. Shoppa using all that classic
> DEC machinery at his Canadian university qualifies as doing "ordinary hom
> applications", although I'm delighted to hear that the old junk is still
> providing useful service (heck, at Hughes here, we have PDP-11s running
I have six all operational two get regular use. BEsides my CP/M systems
>from before the flood.
> >modern MAC or PC, they have NO idea what is bieng missed. web pages in fu
> >photo quality color, realistic games, PPP connections, Realaudio etc. I a
Well, much of this I used to do back around '85 using microvax in color with
a 1280x1024 19" screen! Asa to much of the other stuff it's all hardware
much of which saw it origins on s100, Q and other busses.
Allison
At 12:00 AM 6/28/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> also about enough ram space...NOT!
>> I have some software for the C=64 that plays back digital sound files. wit
>> the stock 64K of ram, I can hold a 6 second clip. with the 1764 ram
>> expansion with 512K of ram, I can hold a 60 second clip, but no longer tha
>
>Funny my s100 crate can playback easily 8mb and using a modified os 32mb
>of sound. In this case a well designed hard disk system (circa 1982)
>easily keeps up without eating ram. On a z80 at 4mhz. Oh, the disk size
>was limited by budget! Even in 1982 hard disks were plenty fast enough to
>support fast DACs or audio.
>
>Allison
That is because the software you run want work well enough at 1 MHZ... and
if you want to edit, that is where the heap requirement goes up.
At 06:20 PM 6/27/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Well, much of this I used to do back around '85 using microvax in color with
^^^^^^^
>a 1280x1024 19" screen! Asa to much of the other stuff it's all hardware
>much of which saw it origins on s100, Q and other busses.
>
>Allison
A microVAX or any of the VAXEN is NOT a home computer. I know that PC's
were not the first ones to do it and never claimed it, and what I am talking
about is the person who still uses his apple ][, and has never touched
anything else, saying everything else is junk. sure a Mini workstation can
do it, no question about it, but I *KNOW* that a kaypro, apple ][+ C=64,
coleco ADAM, 8 bit Ataris and other HOME computers of that era CAN'T handle it.
At 02:52 PM 6/27/97 -0700, you wrote:
>A different thought - I don't really buy the argument for owning a modern
>machine for the purposes of "better" games. But the Web browser thing is
>slightly different, being a VERY powerful and useful communication method.
I agree with you here, and games are fun, but that depends on what you like.
I love the internet, and I learned ALOT from it. sure a shell account with
lynx is nice, as I use it for fast FTP, but when I read about a PDP11, it is
nice to see a picture of one, rather just text.
>
>I have heard that the C64 and Atari 8-bit machines now have graphical Web
>browsers and PPP clients running on them. The TI community is working on
>a TCP/IP system, but we were debating the possibility of a Web browser.
I have dreamed of writing one, and I don't know if someone else has done it,
and if they did, I would grab a copy right away. The main problem that
everyone forgets is that having limited memory is a pain,
and TCP/IP alone uses 64K in ONE SOCKET ALONE as a buffer.
>The argument I and others made in its defense was, granted the stock
>hardware is incapable of SVGA-grade graphical displays, with appropriate
>decoding, you can get "close" (with sufficient processing time), and if
>you have to "scroll" around to see the entire page, so what?
You have a good point there, and it would work sorta, but patience runs thin
after awhile, as decoding images at 1 MHZ does take 1 min, times that with
10 or so inlines you will find at every web page, and waiting 10 mins for a
page to load would make it a fustrating experiance. heck, on days where
there is severe net lag (especially on fridays), it takes 10 mins for the
data to arrive even for fast machines! <G>
It is a cool idea though, and it would be interesting to see if this can be
pulled off.
>1. Am I correct in what I have heard of the C64 and Atari 8-bitters?
>
>2. Is this a reasonable argument for "home computers" being fit out for
>browsing? Or is it silly when $2000 (maybe even below $1000) can get you
>a Web-capable peecee?
You dont have to spend this much to have a fast PC (or MAC), all you need is
to hunt around...
AND NEVER BUY RETAIL SYSTEMS!!! like packard smell.....
>
>3. What other apps are there that are REALLY useful for home use that
>modern machines have and "home computers" don't? And is is really
its not about apps, its about efficincy, and operator comfort. VGA or SVGA
is worth it becuse it prevents eyestrain, and you can use your system for
longer amounts of time. I used color TV's before when I got started, and
serious word processing was painful to the eyes. RGB's are better, but not
by much. also its about speed. The ability to cut and paste is underrated,
as in serious work, it saves gobs of time. I love command line interfaces,
as well as GUI's, but typing long commandlines to just load a directory, its
nice just to be able to type LS -l and get the same result. and if you think
about it, these nice classic machines we love EVOLVED to be the modern ones
we got now, and I understand the resentment of microsnot, as I hate them
too, but I can't understand the resentment of the modern machines. Yes some
say they cost too much, but that can be solved. I see people go gaga over a
PCjr, and while that make a nice collectors item, it is the least usefull
home computer EVER made.
and yes most apps used for home perposes dont need the latest and greatest,
however, a modern machine is far more veratle in the power department, and
the classics are more versatle in the hardware department.
>impossible to do these tasks on "home computers"? Is it worth the time
>and effort (even out of love) to write the software, or even create the
>new peripherals, to enable the old iron to do the job?
>
It is worth the time to develop the software when you need it only if the
results are the same if you used somthing already out there on a capable
machine. I wrote MANY small utilitys for the Commodore, simply because they
did not exist in my area. and while it is fun to do it out of love, it does
get tiring reinventing the wheel all the time. more time went into the
devleopment than in actual use when it was done. I did write a
budget/checkbook balancing program in BASIC, used it a few times, the it got
bit rot, because i never had any money left to manage :)
all in all, if the machine you use now does all what you want, thats great!
but the day WILL come where you just need to have a feature that you have
not got now. that is just the way the computing cookie crumbles.
Can anyone use a mess of BASF Extra 120 (ultra stabilized) tape
carthridges? I don't know much more about them beyond what is written on
them. We get these at work every week and my accountant just tosses them
because she has no use for them (we get records on them from PacBell for
accounting stuff). I could collect these and send them off to someone
every month if they want to pay for shipping in advance.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
At 01:25 PM 6/27/97 -0600, you wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, e.tedeschi wrote:
>
>>I wonder if anybody here has the *exact* months of introduction of the
>>three first *real* home computers introduced in 1977:
>
>>a) the Apple II
>
>Okay, all sources for the Apple II seem to agree that it was introduced in
>April, but what date? From memory I would've said April 17th. I decided
>to confirm this with a quick web search and came up with two dates!
>
>http://www.research.apple.com/extras/history/
>
>puts the date at April 20, 1977 while
>
>http://www.kelleyad.com/histry.htm
>
>puts the date at April 17, 1977. Both of these sources have the
>credentials to be accurate. Which date was it? Surely someone here
>knows.
Well... will have to find the program to check the dates, but the Apple II
was *introduced* at the opening day of the First West Coast Computer Faire
in San Francisco. (I was there - Jim Warren had some *great* stories
around that event!) It created the biggest buzz at the show as I recall...
And then there was that joke that Woz played on Jobs and all of the Altair
fans...
(but I'll get to that later)
-jim
---
jimw(a)agora.rdrop.com
The Computer Garage - http://www.rdrop.com/~jimw
Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174
> also about enough ram space...NOT!
> I have some software for the C=64 that plays back digital sound files. wit
> the stock 64K of ram, I can hold a 6 second clip. with the 1764 ram
> expansion with 512K of ram, I can hold a 60 second clip, but no longer tha
Funny my s100 crate can playback easily 8mb and using a modified os 32mb
of sound. In this case a well designed hard disk system (circa 1982)
easily keeps up without eating ram. On a z80 at 4mhz. Oh, the disk size
was limited by budget! Even in 1982 hard disks were plenty fast enough to
support fast DACs or audio.
Allison
At 07:22 AM 6/27/97 -0800, you wrote:
>> > modern MAC or PC, they have NO idea what is bieng missed. web pages in full
> ^^^^
>> > photo quality color, realistic games, PPP connections, Realaudio etc. I am
> ^^^^^
>
>
>Really? Full photo quality? My early 1940's Speed Graphic makes
>4" x 5" (100mm x 125mm) negatives with roughly 160 dpmm resolution.
>(Admittedly, with a lens that's stopped down considerably...)
>That's roughly 16000 x 20000 pixels, using technology that's over
>50 years old. SuperVGA and CRT's have a long, long, way to go before
>they catch up.
>
>Tim. (shoppa(a)triumf.ca)
>
you are technically correct,
BUT-
viewing a photo on a CRT in 16 million colors is still 100% better than
having only 16 colors...<G>
