9 Aug
2012
9 Aug
'12
10:07 p.m.
On 8/9/2012 9:40 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
Simulators also help do something with software that running artifacts
can't do. They get the software off of bitsavers and into a lot more
places than just a few old farts with working machines. I think the dec
software is far more healthy today for the work of simh and others to
write simulators than if such didn't exist.
I remember back in the good old days (mine were in the mid 70's on) that
I wish I had simulators because even when this crap was new it was a
pain in the ass. I'm into hardware and all, but software and a
simulator will present the same thing thru a terminal as the real thing,
sometimes better, which is an added plus.
the simulator I have runs over 500x as fast as the original hardware,
which I'm just fine with.
After you've gotten all the feel of the original, there is still the
original thing we came for, which is delivered most times just as well
with a simulator and original software.
Of the topic a it as it is preserving hardware, noise components. They
have the most value in the market, but I get way more of a thrill from
seeing the latest thing Al got on bitsavers than the hardware, or even
better help him get something there.
Jim
Simulating
everything for a computer museum is like a regular museum having nothing but reproduction
artifacts. It doesn't work well.
Please note that I said nothing about a
computer museum using
simulators. The question asked was:
>>> So how can the current generation
learn about their computer heritage?
>>> Replicas? Reproductions?
I replied:
Simulators are good.
Note no museum use
was mentioned.
Simulators work well for this, and can be run from the comfort of
anyone's home. No museum required.
So please reconsider your post and how things were actually said.
Please do not stoop to Tony's level, twisting my words at any occasion
- you will end up soiling your reputation (back to the "don't be a
dick" idea).
Anyway, here is a fun thought experiment. Consider two absolutely
identical big machines from the 1960s. Take one, and restore it to
operation. Take the other, and put it into a museum archive and
preserved. Wait 30 years. Now, in 2042, compare the two machines. The
running one will be quite a bit more "used" than the preserved one,
just from normal wear and tear on the components. Now here is the
twist - in 30 years ago, simulators will be magnitudes beyond what we
have today. Simulating not only the architecture, but the sounds,
smells, colors, textures, and so forth. Yes, virtual reality. Now,
what would you want your near perfect simulation to be based off of -
the machine that was used far longer than its normal working history,
or the one that was preserved as it was just taken out of service?
--
Will