12 Aug
2012
12 Aug
'12
11:23 a.m.
Just as a point of trivia, the Boston Computer Museum is a direct
ancestor of CHM. Look at CHMs internal history. Makes a fascinating
read akin to the Israelites and Exodus.
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 18:28 +0100, Dave wrote:
I would say most machines in private hands, but in this world of limited
funds and resources personal preservation is the only way many things will
be retained.
Certainly in the UK no cash in 99% of the cases except for a small number of
sites.
-- Colin
-----Original
Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of William Donzelli
Sent: 12 August 2012 17:43
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: To all with interest in preservation
I believe that the loss of the knowledge on how to run these machines would
be more significant in the loss of access to data.
I think though that for many machine your recent
comparison
with Inca
(was it Inca?) pottery and other archaeology is
not especially
relevant.
Then you missed the point. And no, I was the one that
compared it early archeologists trashing village sites to get
to the kings, and how they destroyed sites that we really
wish we had today.
I doubt
if we have any working drawings, or other written
documentation on how
these machines work.
Correct, and we wish we did. Archaeology is, honestly, mostly
educated guesses on what little hard evidence we have.
For many computers such as the IBM 1130, the
PDP-8 and even the ICT
1301 we have copious documentation, drawings, records,
photographs and
software. We understand the technology and
contraction of these
machines in intimate detail.
No we do not.
Certain information normally does not show up in the
information you list. Specifically, things related to the
actually manufacture of the machines. Very little
documentation points out how the machines were built,
preferred vendors, subtle (or not so subtle) design flaws,
normal wear during expected lifetime, and so forth. For
example - can you tell me what brands of tubes IBM used in
their mainframes, and why RCA somehow was dropped from their
preferred vendors list? Why did Tung Sol and GE beat them?
And who made the tube sockets? Amphenol? EBY? AMP? Cinch? Who
was preferred there?
Who cares, you ask - such a minor issue, right?
Well, this is where you missed the point. We do not know what
future scholars will be interested in studying with these
machines. In the future, when the architecture and software
of some machine are pretty well studied out, there will be
people looking to dig deeper, and learn in depth about things
today we see as mundane. But, by using machines, you will
destroy somethings that could be very valuable evidence to
these future scholars.
Given
sufficient funds we could, as with the Manchester Mk1 (Baby)
produce modern replicas of these machines. Some such as the
IBM 1130,
would be expensive to replicate as it used IBM
SLT "Hybrid"
circuits
and cartridge disks, but I am sure there is
enough information
available to clone the thing.
Clones are never perfect in the real world. These clones
would not be able to capture many of the subtle nuances of
the manufacturing processes of old. In many cases, clone
makers take shortcuts, and may not document these properly,
nor understand the consequences.
I would concede this point if care was taken to
preserve
machines that
were not run. However in my experience machines
that are
not used, and
considered as "un-useable" are often
not looked after either.
Sort of like most machines in private hands, right? You are
including those in your survey, right?
Yes, there are some museums that do not take care
of things,
just like many collectors. But, if you look at the big
players in the computer museum field, you will find that they
keep their holdings in secure, climate controlled areas, and
as resources become available, proper stabilization is done.
But their seems to be this problem that the museums that are
not caring for their holdings somehow give ALL museums this
bad reputation. That is not right.
In my experience of travelling the world this seems to be the case. I have
never visited a museum where the on-display but non-operational artefacts
appear to be given any significant care and attention. Some of the places I
have visited have, such as the Boston Computer Museum have closed, but
others are still open.
The problem is that, as we agree, preserving a computer isn't trivial or
cheap, there isn't the money. Given that volunteer staff are hard to come
by, yet they are the mainstay of preservation in many museums, what
incentive is there for any one to participate in a museum where everything
is "dead", and preserved just in case some one wants to come along later and
worrying about the type of valve in it, or investigate the historic timings
of DTL logic. Realistically the only way that 99% of the computers in
museums get any attention is when they are used.
Personally if I was asked to mothball machines I would want a proper salary
whereas at present my labours are free(ish).
I believe
that it
needs to be an active process and the condition of the
artefacts must
be monitored and recorded, and if decay occurs
action taken.
Conservation 101, first day of class.
--
Will