24 May
2003
24 May
'03
6:08 p.m.
This is my main gripe about museums, a static display
loses over 90% of
the interest of a machine. What use knowing the size and color of the
cabinet if you have no insigght into what went on inside!
I agree. The problem seems to be that many of the traditional exhibits in
museums (fine art, archeology, etc) _are_ static objects and the
appearence is, in general all that matters and all that can be observed.
This is _not_ true of computers (or other scientific and
engineering-related objects), but the museums don't seem to realise this
and apply the same policies to all objects.
If all the meusume is interested in is the appearance of the case, then
why does it matter if somebody restores the internals? The case is
unchanged by doing this. The fact that the machine might well run again
and would thus give additional information as to the state of computing
<n> years ago would seem to be a bonus.
> Over the years how many people are still around who can
> operate, repair, or maintain 50's era computers? Power requirements would
Can somebody please explain to me why it is so difficult to _learn_ these
skills? I will admit I've enver worked on a 1950's computer (the oldest
machine I've worked on dates from 1969 [1]), but I don't see why I'd find
it impossible given a little bit of time to learn the tricks that were
used then.
[1] An HP9100B. I had to start out by writing the repair manual...
also be a pain
for the older models.
This is clearly an issue we need to pass on these skills to a younger
generation. Here at ACONIT our goal is a conservatoire of computing
history, hopefully as such it will perpetuate the skills needed. The