The first GUI system was the Xerox Alto. It was desk-sized. The
commercial model was the Xerox Star, which was somewhat smaller (c.1977)
The Xerox Alto appears to have introduced:
- Bitmapped displays
- BitBLT raster operations
- Cursor changes to show system mode
- GUI menus and Popup menus
- Overlapped windows
- Tiled windows
- Scroll bars
- Push buttons, radio buttons, check boxes
- Dialog boxes
- Multiple fonts and styles visible in text
- Cut/Copy/Paste with a mouse
The Lisa UI appears to have introduced:
- Pull-down menus
- Menu bars
- Disabling (graying) of menu items
- Command-key shortcust for menu items
- Check marks on menu items
The book "Fumbling the Future: How Xerox Invented, Then Ignored, the
First Personal Computer" by Douglas Smith and Robert Alexander, states
that Xerox voluntarily offered the UI elements to Steve Jobs. Apple
does not appear to have "stolen" the ideas.
Kai
> ----------
> From: Daniel A. Seagraves
> Reply To: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 1997 2:11 PM
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
> Subject: Re: Lisa's scores
>
> On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 starling(a)umr.edu wrote:
>
> > > Actually, Xerox had a working GUI-based system (the name eludes me
> at the
> > > moment) well before the LISA, which is where Jobs got his
> inspiration
>
> Was it Smalltalk?
> I got a picture of that, somewhere...
>
Let's not forget that old machines were, in their day, designed to be used
by *mainstream* users. So, let's look at the people who would -- nowadays
-- use old machines.
1) Newbies/inexperienced users. Are these people willing to put up
inadequate documentation, unbelievably klunky software with *no* tech
support? No -- no more than they were willing to when the machines were
new.
2) Power users? most would laugh at the idea of using a "relic". They would
be no more caught dead with one than a photographic toy-boy would with a
point-and-shoot camera (altho' many pros, with nothing to prove, use P&S's
as cheap backup cameras. Don't tell anyone <g>)
3) People who love it? few and far between. Sure, you can do e-mail, use
lynx to check out the web on an XT (I cheat...I use a 386SX lap top with a
2400 baud modem). Using an old machine to perform routine tasks -- tasks
for which the machines were originally designed and sold -- in no way
ennobles the person who does so...it's just a hobby, rife with the same
inconveniences that plague any undertaking. Most people have some sort of
hobby, (altho' usually not as technical) and go through the same
inconveniences we do, working with their love.
I do a fair amount of photographic retouching on my P-133. I need large
amounts of disk space (up to 30 MB per), memory, processing speed --
otherwise, I just can't do it. (I can't just go have a cup of coffee.) I do
publication and page layout, and WSYWIG is an enormous convenience. (sure,
LaTeX on the VAX gives me nice output. Give me Microsoft Publisher to get
work done a lot faster...I have to feed my family.)
As an engineer, I used to do finite element analysis on rubber products.
Running on a 486-50 (the fastest available at the time) a single job would
run overnight. Try *that* on a PDP-11!
The point? (He finally gets to one!)Many tasks can be accomplished easily
on an XT running 1-2-3 or QEDIT -- sure. But, many jobs are now possible to
do on a garden-variety PC (mac) which were impossible to perform on older
machines.
Many of the midrange minies like the PDP-11, perq, and a host of others
can and did do much of the web thing. much of the old machines don't do
that was not a matter of speed or memory but software conceived to do that.
is it practical not finance wise the user population is too small and would
not pay much but the hardware can make a good account of itself.
Keep in mind most of the PCs have only gotten to or exceeded the
minicomputer performance level say in the last 7 years maybe less.
Before then people used all manner of things to accomplish was PCs
are commonly used for.
Allison
>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
>not a member of the dark force, I just have a multitude of machines, and I
>have EXPERIANCED running them, from an apple ][ +, C=64, IBM XT, and a 586-133.
>we must have an open mind about this, as there are some who still never ran
>anything NEW, and pass judgment about how bad a machine is when they have
>never used one.
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 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.
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?
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?
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
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?
--
**********************************************
* David Ormand *** Southwest 99ers *
* dlormand(a)aztec.asu.edu *** Tucson, Arizona *
**************************** TMS9900 Lives! *
I am glad to hear that others, like myself, commonly use a "non-mainstream"
machine for ordinary home applications. I would like to keep this discussion
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 home
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
AMRAAM test equipment, and HP-1000s running Tomahawk test equipment).
>But it depends upon what you are doing. While in theory you could
>calculate e to 100,000 digits using an Apple ][, it might take upwards of a
>week for the results, and you couldn't use the computer in the meantime,
>whereas on modern machines, 100,000 digits could be generated in under an
>hour, and with the right OS, you could still work on other things [1].
I would also hesitate to say that calculating e to 100,000th digits is
an ordinary household task. As is graphics arts, desktop publishing, audio
mixing, and a lot of other things that some people do in their homes for fun
or profit. Obviously you need the tools for the job. But nearly EVERYTHING
you do for common home jobs can be done on the "home computers" that were sold
for the purpose nearly 20 years ago.
>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
>not a member of the dark force, I just have a multitude of machines, and I
>have EXPERIANCED running them, from an apple ][ +, C=64, IBM XT, and a 586-133.
>we must have an open mind about this, as there are some who still never ran
>anything NEW, and pass judgment about how bad a machine is when they have
>never used one.
I really have no dispute with people with modern machines. [Especially
Macs or BeOS machines, for instance; peecees to me are primarily means
for the Microsoft empire to attain world domination.] My beef is:
(a) When these people look down on you for sticking with your "toy"
computer when theirs is obviously so much more superior to yours,
(b) People mislead by the above people into thinking that they MUST
have a Pentium-class peecee to balance their checkbooks on,
(c) User/owners of "non-mainstream" machines dumping them when they
swallow the propaganda that they MUST have a peecee or they will
be hopelessly left behind.
The obvious reason the collectors in this List can acquire the classic machines
for pennies from thrift stores is that people who donate to or shop at these
thrift stores believe this is worthless junk that isn't capable of doing
anything useful. I (and others on this List) KNOW that is false, but what can
you do? How do you raise a voice of opposition in the face of the Wintel
juggernaut?
--
**********************************************
* David Ormand *** Southwest 99ers *
* dlormand(a)aztec.asu.edu *** Tucson, Arizona *
**************************** TMS9900 Lives! *
Here's the list I keep. Sorry about the formatting.
Kai
November, 1971 Intel 4004 CPU
1971 Nutting & Associates Computer Space arcade
1972 Atari Pong arcade
1972 Magnavox Odyssey home video game system
November, 1972 Intel 8008 CPU
March, 1974 Scelbi 8H kit appears in QST magazine
April, 1974 Intel 8080 CPU
July, 1974 Mark 8 plans appear in Radio Electronics magazine
August, 1974 Motorola 6800
1974 RCA 1802 CPU
1974 Atari Pong home game
January, 1975 MITS Altair 8800
September, 1975 IBM 5100
1975 IMSAI 8080
1975 Processor Technology Sol
1975 MOS Technology/Commodore KIM-1
July, 1976 Apple I kit
July, 1976 Zilog Z80 CPU
1976 Fairchild/Zircon Channel F home game
April, 1977 Apple II
April, 1977 Commodore PET
August, 1977 Tandy TRS-80
1977 Atari 2600 VCS home game
1977 RCA Studio II home game
1977 Bally Astrocade home game
1978 Intel 8085 CPU
June, 1978 Intel 8086 CPU
December, 1978 Atari 400/800 s
1978 Taito/Bally/Midway Space Invaders arcade
1978 Magnavox Odyssey2 home game
February, 1979 Intel 8088 CPU
May, 1979 Seattle Products 8086 S-100 CPU board
May, 1979 Tandy TRS-80 Model II
June, 1979 Texas Instruments 99/4
June, 1979 Apple II+
September, 1979 Motorola 68000 CPU
1979 Atari Asteroids arcade
1979 Atari Lunar Lander arcade
1979 Mattel Intellivision home game
February, 1980 Sinclair ZX80
June, 1980 Commodore VIC-20
July, 1980 Tandy TRS-80 Model III
July, 1980 Tandy TRS-80 Color I
September, 1980 Apple III
1980 Atari Battlezone arcade
1980 Atari Missile Command arcade
1980 Bally/Midway Pac-Man arcade
1980 APF M1000 home game
April, 1981 Osborne 1
May, 1981 Xerox Star
August, 1981 IBM PC
1981 Atari Centipede arcade
1981 Nintendo Donkey Kong arcade
November, 1982 Compaq Portable PC
1982 Commodore 64
1982 Colecovision home game
1982 GCE/Milton Bradley Vectrex home game
1982 Milton Bradley Microvision hand held game
1982 Atari 5200 home game
1982 Emerson Arcadia 2001 home game
January, 1983 Apple Lisa
January, 1983 Apple Iie
March, 1983 Tandy TRS-80 Model 100
April, 1983 Tandy TRS-80 Model 4
June, 1983 Coleco Adam
October, 1983 IBM PC-XT
October, 1983 Compaq Portable Plus
December, 1983 Apple III+
1983 Mattel Intellivision II home game
1983 Mattel Aquarius
January, 1984 Apple Macintosh
February, 1984 IBM Portable PC
March, 1984 IBM PCjr
April, 1984 Apple IIc
June, 1984 Compaq DeskPro
August, 1984 IBM PC-AT
September, 1984 Tandy 1000
1984 Motorola 68010 CPU
1984 Intel 80186 CPU
1984 Intel 80286 CPU
January, 1985 Commodore 128
January, 1985 Atari 520ST
January, 1985 Atari XE
January, 1985 Apple Macintosh XL
April, 1985 Compaq DeskPro 286
April, 1985 Compaq Portable 286
July, 1985 Commodore Amiga 1000
1985 Nintendo Entertainment System
January, 1986 Apple Macintosh Plus
February, 1986 Compaq Portable II
April, 1986 IBM PC Convertible
August, 1986 Intel 80386 CPU
September, 1986 Compaq DeskPro 386
September, 1986 IBM PC-XT 286
1986 Sega Master System home game
1986 Atari 7800
March, 1987 Apple Macintosh II
April, 1987 IBM PS/2
October, 1987 Compaq Portable 386
1987 Motorola 68030 CPU
> ----------
> From: e.tedeschi
> Reply To: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 1997 4:39 AM
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
> Subject: which month?
>
> 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>
>
----------
> From: Ward Griffiths and/or Lisa Rogers <gram(a)terra.cnct.com>
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: PETs ( was Who was in Australia?)
> Date: Sunday, June 22, 1997 4:30 PM
>
> On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Olminkhof wrote:
> > keyboard 4k version, a CBM 3032 and a CBM 8032 hulk. I suspect they
will
> > always be around because they are so hard to destroy. The case is very
> > solid. I found the "hulk" in a paddock, like some people find ancient
cars!
> > I've never attempted to power this one up though.
>
> I take "paddock" is Strine for "junkyard", and open to the elements?
"paddock" is an english word for a place where animals graze.
> --
> Ward Griffiths
> "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within
> the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Claire Wolfe
>What worries me is that in a lot of cases, the older machines are more
>useable than the modern Wintel equivalents. This applies both to a new
>user (somebody who just wants to write 2 page letters does _NOT_ (or
>should not) need a 166MHz Pentium with 16Mbytes of RAM), and to 'hackers'
>who want to understand their machines. It's possible for one person to
>complete understand both the hardware and software of most classic
>computers - something that (IMHO) is not possible with a Wintel box.
>Same here. In reality I use my s100 crate, ampro, and sb180 to produce
>8048/9 and 8051 code as they really are faster and easier to use. Also
>being as I have them interconnected it's easier to blast proms in the
>s100 crate. Efficient, very! I've had nearly 20 years to refine the code
>and tools! I have the advantage of having source code for those tools so
>and long latent bugs are easily squashed. This is not doable on PCs.
>I still do my banking/checkbook on the kaypro! Faster than the PC
>overall.
For a while there, I was thinking maybe I'm in the wrong group.
I see a LOT of traffic about restoring and collecting old computers,
and the typical member here is one who has a large collection of
different machines, but except for a rare question about boot disks,
there isn't much said about using these machines. When I turn on my
99/4A or Geneve, it isn't primarily to bask in a nostalgic glow, but
to write something or balance my budget or do some programming.
Certainly the nostalgic glow is there, and it adds a dimension to
the computing experience that peecee devotees cannot understand. But
it IS my primary workhorse, not just a desk queen.
Don't get me wrong; I love to hear about these old machines, so keep
those messages coming. But I would like to hear from others out there
who use their obsolete machines (I prefer "non-mainstream machines")
for practical, everyday, household computing uses.
In fact, I'm wondering how widespread my idea is (shared by a
few, apparently) that the smaller, simpler machines really are well
suited for home use, and you don't need a high-end peecee for nearly
everything you want to do.
--
**********************************************
* David Ormand *** Southwest 99ers *
* dlormand(a)aztec.asu.edu *** Tucson, Arizona *
**************************** TMS9900 Lives! *
> Of course if you were a real hacker you had an M-code box that let you
> write the native 10 bit (?) instructions for the 41's CPU (I forget what
> it's called).
I got more into the guts of the HP-71, which was a 20-bit, nybble-oriented.
It had a Saturn chip (I think), on which I programmed in FORTH. A FORTH
chip was talked about for the HP-41 (never heard it called a coco, though)
but I don't know if it jelled.
> Anyone remember a trivial-pursuit-like Computer Trivia game? It was
being
> touted at one of the last West Coast Computer Faires here in San
Francisco.
> Anyone have a copy?
I have computer-based trivia game (shareware, I think) on a CD-ROM. I could
dig it up, if anyone want it...it had pretty hard questions, which went
'way back to the dawn of time (you know, like the 1950's :> ))
IIRC the TRS-80 was introduced in September 1977.
----------
From: e.tedeschi
Sent: Friday, June 27, 1997 7:39 AM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: which month?
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>
As much as I would love to get this stuff directly myself, I would much
prefer that you send them to Don Maslin, the CP/M boot disk archivist,
>from whom I (and many others) can obtain copies.
Kai
> ----------
> From: Doug Rich
> Reply To: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 1997 9:27 PM
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
> Subject: Northstar Software
>
> I was a northstar dealer for many years and have a box (about the size
> of a
> case of paper) full of northstar software on original disks. I am not
> sure
> what to do with them. I would like them to be of some use to someone.
> Any suggestions?
>
> Doug
>
> Remember... No mater where you go... there you are!
>
At 04:07 PM 6/26/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>>What worries me is that in a lot of cases, the older machines are more
>>useable than the modern Wintel equivalents. This applies both to a new
>>user (somebody who just wants to write 2 page letters does _NOT_ (or
>>should not) need a 166MHz Pentium with 16Mbytes of RAM), and to 'hackers'
>>who want to understand their machines. It's possible for one person to
>>complete understand both the hardware and software of most classic
>>computers - something that (IMHO) is not possible with a Wintel box.
>
>>Same here. In reality I use my s100 crate, ampro, and sb180 to produce
>>8048/9 and 8051 code as they really are faster and easier to use. Also
>>being as I have them interconnected it's easier to blast proms in the
>>s100 crate. Efficient, very! I've had nearly 20 years to refine the code
>>and tools! I have the advantage of having source code for those tools so
>>and long latent bugs are easily squashed. This is not doable on PCs.
>
>>I still do my banking/checkbook on the kaypro! Faster than the PC
>>overall.
>
>For a while there, I was thinking maybe I'm in the wrong group.
>
>I see a LOT of traffic about restoring and collecting old computers,
>and the typical member here is one who has a large collection of
>different machines, but except for a rare question about boot disks,
>there isn't much said about using these machines. When I turn on my
>99/4A or Geneve, it isn't primarily to bask in a nostalgic glow, but
>to write something or balance my budget or do some programming.
>Certainly the nostalgic glow is there, and it adds a dimension to
>the computing experience that peecee devotees cannot understand. But
>it IS my primary workhorse, not just a desk queen.
>
>Don't get me wrong; I love to hear about these old machines, so keep
>those messages coming. But I would like to hear from others out there
>who use their obsolete machines (I prefer "non-mainstream machines")
>for practical, everyday, household computing uses.
>
>In fact, I'm wondering how widespread my idea is (shared by a
>few, apparently) that the smaller, simpler machines really are well
>suited for home use, and you don't need a high-end peecee for nearly
>everything you want to do.
>
>--
>**********************************************
>* David Ormand *** Southwest 99ers *
>* dlormand(a)aztec.asu.edu *** Tucson, Arizona *
>**************************** TMS9900 Lives! *
>
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
not a member of the dark force, I just have a multitude of machines, and I
have EXPERIANCED running them, from an apple ][ +, C=64, IBM XT, and a 586-133.
we must have an open mind about this, as there are some who still never ran
anything NEW, and pass judgment about how bad a machine is when they have
never used one.
Thought someone may be interested.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "News User" <tbinet(a)ic.net>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2.marketplace
Subject: Apple III computer & Monitor FS
Date: 25 Jun 1997 12:57:25 GMT
I have an Apple III computer & Monitor III for sale with Manuals
and software for sale, or Trade. Please let me know if you are
interested.
Robert
Please respond to:
rdoerr(a)bizserve.com
--
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
> From hacking Commodore 1541 disks, I have seen that it used a system as you
> mentioned above, and in block 0 of each file the first 2 bytes was the load
> address if it was a program file, or data in a sequnetial file, and each
> block had pointers to the next block. too bad that ms-dos is not as simple..
But MS-DOS _is_ that simple. It just stores the linked list in a
different part of the disk than it stores the data...
Roger Ivie
ivie(a)cc.usu.edu
> Does anyone have information / know where I could find information on
> building a computer using 2901's? I know they were fairly common and
> I have (I'm almost positive) a few of the bare chips laying around
> home.
Find an old (early 80s) copy of the amd or motorola data books.
These are bipolar 4 bit slices and can be used to make a fairly fast
cpu (10mhz) of variying designs from 4 bit to over 64 bits. Warning
microcoding can be habit forming. You will also want 2909/10/11 microcode
sequencer chips. Those are less common.
It's rather fun designing a cpu to your specs, hten of course you'll write
all the other code too as it's one up design.
Allison
thanks to a pointer originally posted on this list i met up with someone
yesterday who bequeathed me his old Z-100 (Heath/Zenith pre-pc era dual CPU
system). it took me a while to replace a bunch of the keyboard switches
(they were gunked up with glue) and some bad video RAM, but now the system
hums along nicely. he had souped it up in a number of ways (except no hard
disk, darn) and had tons of software. i'll undoubtedly have extra and will
post a listing of duplicates at some point in case anyone's interested. he
included lots of cp/m stuff including cp/m85 and cp/m86 and, interestingly,
mp/m. so thanks for the pointer guys!
(P.S. i've noticed a markedly improved signal to noise ratio on this list
lately so people are thinking twice before hitting the "send" button with
meaningless chatter or flaming comments - let's keep it up!)
tx.
- glenn
+=========================================================+
| Glenn F. Roberts, Falls Church, VA
| Comments are my own and not the opinion of my employer
| groberts(a)mitre.org
chemif(a)mbox.queen.it wrote:
>At 13:54 23/06/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>> On another note, has anyone ever seen (or have) a Basis-xxx? I know it
>>> has a number in the name, but I can't remember it. It was an Apple ][
>>> clone that also ran CP/M I believe? Something like that. I'm sure
>>> someone knows about it. I only knew one guy who ever had one, but I
never
>>> saw it. It was a friend in high school back in 1989.
>>
>>I believe these were designed/built in Europe, probably Germany.
>
>In Italy there was Lemon computer building Apple-clones.
>Has anyone heard about them?
Were they actually called 'Lemon's'? That certainly doesn't have a
positive
connotation in North America!
In Canada, a company built Apple II clones called 'Pineapples'.
There were probably other fruit-named clones as well!
--
Clark Geisler
I monitor this mailing list (some might call it lurking) because of all the
now-classic machines that I used to own. If I had the room, time, and skill,
I might be a collector like most of you, but for now I must be content to
watch. I'm glad to see that so many people are still getting use out of these
machines. There are certainly times when I wish I understood what was going
on inside a Windows 95 box as well as I understood the various Kaypros, the
Geneva, the Timex-Sinclair, the Model 100, or the other machines I once used
on a daily basis. I suppose that even my Mac SE would qualify as a "classic
machine" by now.
On the other hand, let's not go overboard and say that you can do as much with
those lean, mean computers of yesteryear as you can with today's bloated and
overpowered desktop Cadillacs. Despite the processing power and overhead
devoted to being more user friendly, today's machines are better at doing most
kinds of real work. Okay, if you're just writing business letters or
balancing your checkbook, a Kaypro is going to work just as well as a Dell
Pentium. But that's only one extreme. When I was working on my dissertation,
I wrote a cluster analysis program for my Kaypro II because it was the only
machine I had. It took months to write and debug the program (written in
S-BASIC), and every time I ran the analysis it took two days--literally, 48+
hours of grinding away. I could do the same thing in seconds using SAS and
the P133 machine on which I'm typing this. In fact, I do this sort of thing
for a living, and there are so many things that would be a major project on a
classic machine which I do now just as a matter of preliminary exploration.
And it's not just statistics. Writing reports is much easier with a mouse and
multitasking. Getting data from dBASE II to Perfect Calc and then moving the
summary table to Wordstar or Perfect Writer was a considerable chore.
Yesterday I zapped a bunch of Quattro Pro tables (based on SAS output) over to
a Word document, and everything showed up with no trouble, formatting and all.
Those are programs written by rival companies, but they can talk to each other
just fine.
Others have mentioned that it takes more skill and intelligence to use classic
software than to point and click. I don't disagree with that, and I'm proud
of what I was able to get those machines to do. Learning to use those kinds
of computers has given me a better outlook about later ones, and I still tweak
my current set up much more than most people (and certainly more than our IT
department would like me to). But then, I remember a lot of people in my
Kaypro User's Group who never figured out how to use the modems in their 2Xs.
Friendlier interfaces have opened up the benefits of computing to a lot of
people who would never have put up with CP/M. After all computers are
_supposed_ to make your life easier. If that means they require less
intelligence and skill to use, that means they're doing their job.
--Dav
david_a._vandenbroucke(a)hud.gov
>From: steve <steve(a)kennard.keme.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: PET
> Hi you lot, glad the group is in a positive mood!!!
> Ok can you help ? a few months ago I found a Commodore P500 seriel NO. WG00837
?????
Well if you collect Commodres, you are a very fortunate person!
> What the heck is it????
> Its made in W.Germany
> Any Idea??
> Steve
All I can do is give you the U.S. perspective on this machine, since I
haven't heard any stories on the European distribution of P-500s.
A few years back I picked up one (P-500) as well, with people telling me
it was a B-128, I didn't look at the back and was surely perplexed when
I needed to hook it to my 1702 and it came up in 40 column color when I
turned it on, so I did some research and asked around a few places (on
Q-Link, and a query to the Chicago B-128 users group). I received two
or three stories that were pretty much the same.
Back in 1982 Commodore re-vamped it's entire product line in order to
replace the aging PETs and to eventually phase out the then looking more
limited VIC-20. The line consisted of the Commodore 64 and Ulitmax, for
games/home/education use and the B-128 and P-500 for education/business
and as an upgrade option for people who purchased alot of PET (IEEE-488)
equipment.
In its rush (given the home computer wars), Commodore sent a bunch of
demo units of the B-128 and P-500 to dealers (yeah, I know that sounds
strange, it was a different Commodore back then) these units were not to
be sold as they still needed to get their FCC certification (for low
radio interference). Well some of these dealers were offered quick cash
for the demo units (even though they had no manuals or anything) and of
course, they jumped at the chance. The FCC heard about these sales of
uncertified equipment and told Commodore to immediately cease any sales
of them and face stiff penalties. Commodore promptly recalled them (at
least the ones they could get). Well they finally certified the B-128
but I guess being that the Commodore 64 was so popular they abandoned
the P-500 entirely and it is said they destroyed all reamining P-500s.
At the time I talked to the CB128UG (1990?) they said I was the third
person in the world ever to report having one, and their estimation was
that there are ten in existence. (they would have known since they were
lent ALL documantation on the B-128 series from Commodore when they gave
up that B-series computers).
Ok the P-500 has a 6502 type processor (you know, like the 64) and 128k
of RAM, it has a SID sound chip (also on the 64 and B-128), a true
RS-232 port, cartridge port (I know of no carts avalable for the B
series) and IEEE-488 port. But unlike the B-128 it sports a 40 column
VIC-II chip, two joystick ports and ROM coding that supports the
datasette drive (the B-128 also has a connector but no programming to
use it). Both computers could accept an optional 8088 co-processor
board and make it capapble of running CP/M 86.
The RS-232 port has one pin designated (on both B-128 &P-500) for a
high-speed networking system that never went into development (but was
put in hardware, just in case) the guy from CB128UG was pretty impressed
with the stats on it which I forgot.
So to sum it up, the P-500 is essentially the Color PET or P-128 that
Commodore had talked about. Kinda a cross between the SuperPET/B-128
(128k, IEEE-488, true RS-232, Co-Processor), and a 64 (SID, VIC-II,
Joysticks, color).
Jim Butterfield made a memory map for the B-128 and has some programming
examples for the B-128 in Transactor issues which might get you some
information, but there are differences. My unit has a RAM problem and I
haven't been able to explore it too much, also the ROMs are pretty much
porototype and it runs like molassas, so I dunno how much good that
would do me when I eventually fix it...
If you do find out ANYTHING more (or even have a manual on it) I would
surely be interested in what you find out!
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
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
At 09:45 PM 6/24/97 -0400, you wrote:
>> us, rather than simply because a machine is physically attractive,
>> technically impressive, or financially successful.
>Actually, some of the real dogs are just as fun and important. The Lisa,
>for example, strikes out on all three (OK, two strikes and one foul) of the
>above mentioned catagories, but is still a fascinating machine.
Hey, waitaminnit.... The lisa is one of the best looking computers around!
I think it's design is a classic! (Also, I think it was technically
impressive -- I remember being very impressed upon seeing a demo in a little
back room of the St. Francis hotel just before it was announced.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
sinasohn(a)crl.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
>> I was a northstar dealer for many years and have a box (about the size >>of a case of paper) full of northstar software on original disks. I am not >>sure what to do with them. I would like them to be of some use to >>someone.
>Don Maslin (a frequent contributor to comp.os.cpm) has proven to be
>a remarkably able archivist of this sort of stuff. Among other
>things, he has a huge archive of CP/M boot disks that he makes
>available to those with orphaned machines. His e-mail
>address is donm(a)cts.com.
I would second this suggestion. Don has saved me on a number of occasions and I think he would be happy to archive and distribute the software to those who need it. Good call Tim.
bw
I was a northstar dealer for many years and have a box (about the size of a
case of paper) full of northstar software on original disks. I am not sure
what to do with them. I would like them to be of some use to someone.
Any suggestions?
Doug
Remember... No mater where you go... there you are!
----------
From: Alexios Chouchoulas[SMTP:alexios@vennea.demon.co.uk]
Reply To: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Sent: Friday, June 27, 1997 3:20 AM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: CBM 900
> What information is there on the CBM 900? I was mailed by someone who has
> a working one and is looking for more information on the machine.
What do you need? I have the Coherent-Disk the Manual and some technical
diagramms for the C900.
> Any info
> would be lovely. Btw, his machine is apparently a prototype (it says so
> somewhere -- probably a sticker or something).
Yes ist is a prototype. According to Jim Brains "cbmmodel":
C900 Series: Prototype UNIX System, dropped after Amiga acquisition
Zilog Z8000 CPU, Runs Coherent 0.7.3, UNIX 7 clone,
Built-In Floppy, HD, IEEE-488. MFM Disk Controller, 1MB
9600 bps, 500 units made. Came in two versions.
