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>
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.
