Every time I'be both seem an emulator of a
chassic machine [...] and
also run the real hardware myself, I feel the emultor doens't come
close to the experinece of actually running the classic computer.
In some respects, of course, it can't. In other respects, it can't
until VR technology gets a lot better.
Well, I wastn a simualtor that will give me a painful burn on my hand
when i touch the overheting resisotr. I want one that will kick me across
the ROM if I hapoen to touch the heatsink on the chopper transistor. That
will trip the breaker ot half the house and plunge the room into darkness
if I conenct the virtual 'scope to the mains side of the PSU. And so on.
However, they serve useful purposes nevertheless. In particular, they
I do not dispute that. THey are however a pale initation of the real
thing. Useful, but by no means the whole stroy.
can give more of a taste of the experience than most
people are likely
to get any other way. And to someone who's got the interest potential
but nothing to spark it, it can be that spark.
Sure. But given that most peole can run the simualtors at home if they
want to, there is little reason for museums to show them (in the same
way that sicne anyone can buy a book of reproductions of Old Master
paintings, there is litle point in having an art gallery that just
displays such books ]1]). The museum should show more -- like the real
machine in operation
[1] Note that I have said nothign about such books (or indeed simulators)
being sold in the appropriate museum shop. That is clearly a Good Thing.
And, for a hands-on museum, a replica panel backed by an emulator will
be close enough for a lot of people, better in that it's a lot easier
to fix and/or replace if it gets heavy and/or careless use (I'm
thinking schoolkids).
Wby not replcia controls (the bit that is going to get the heavy-handed
interaction) backed by the real machine? Having seen an R-pi at the
weekend, I know hwich out of that and a PDP11 (saY) I'd rather have to
keep running.
-tony