10 Nov
2006
10 Nov
'06
12:24 a.m.
If you search Google groups you will see that the first appearance of
the term in a post ("lap-top") was in July 1983 in a post by Dan
Chernikoff, referring to the TRS-80 model 100.
http://groups.google.com/group/net.micro/browse_frm/thread/301dac92a10aa
2f6/814b0c6dd096e119?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#814b0c6dd096e119
To search Lexis while avoiding the tags, limit the search to the body of
the article by searching "Date<1985 and body(Laptop or lap-top)". Doing
this will get you to a late 1983 ComputerWorld article that begins:
Computerworld
November 30, 1983
SECTION: Pg. 59
LENGTH: 2498 words
HEADLINE: PORTABLE PRODUCTIVITY
BYLINE: By William Murto; Murto is vice-president of marketing, Compaq
Computer Corp., Houston.
BODY:
Today's portables can be divided into several descriptive catagories:
the handheld units, the lap-top computers, the transportable units and
the integrated portables. These machines range in weight from several
ounces (the handheld units) to more than 30 pounds (the transportables).
The handheld units, just as their name implies, are typically not much
larger than a hand calculator and generally run on batteries. They are
limited in function and are normally little more than a combination of a
hand calculator and data entry terminal.
The lap-top computers fit smartly into most briefcases and are
considerably more powerful and capable than the handheld types. However,
these versions have limited display screens and limited memory. They are
also limited by the applications programs they can run.
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:31:27 -0500
From: "Evan Koblentz" <evan at snarc.net>
Subject: Correction to a looooooong ago post!
To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <000101c70307$e713d700$6401a8c0 at DESKTOP>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Way back in July 1999, someone wrote thus:
stairs... do
Of course if every PC cost 10k then buyers would make darn
sure they learned
how to use it properly, rather than the current situation of
buying one and
sticking it on the 'net with no kind of firewall or virus protection.
Giving complex tools to the masses when they expect to be
able to just jump
right in and use them with no training whatsoever seems like
a pretty insane
plan.
End of cctalk Digest, Vol 39, Issue 19
**************************************
>> Byte Magazine first used the term
"laptop" in reference to a
>> production
computer, after viewing the Epson HX-20 at a trade show in
November 1981. <<<
The original post is here:
http://classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/1999-July/130419.html
.... but it's not true! Recently I looked through all the
Byte issues from that time period and found the reference in
question, which was in the Feb. 1982 issue. In the issue's
main editorial, on page 14, Chris Morgan referred to "...an
intriguing prototype of the Epson HX-20 personal computer...
The beginning of a new trend to what I call 'briefcase'
computers: battery-operated machines that combine portability
with powerful computer features. It's the sort of design
that will appeal to people on the move."
Byte's earliest use of "laptop" that I could find wasn't
until the Jan. 1984 issue, in an article called
"Portables--1984 and Beyond" by Dave Winer. I contacted Dave
and he said he heard the term from Ester Dyson, but Ester
said she doesn't recall saying it. She did say that
"luggable" was her term, referring to the suitcase-sized
computers. Byte did write about "lap" computers a couple of
times in 1983, but not "laptops" per se.
I'm bringing this up now because I have seen a few recent web
references which cite the 1999 post as fact.
Can anyone show me (not just say they remember) a pre-Jan.
1984 reference to the word "laptop" in the context of
portable computers?
I searched on Lexis-Nexus but the results were flawed.
Apparently someone tagged all the pre-1984 references to
"mobile" and "portable" computers with the word "laptop"
which may be logical for most searchers but doesn't help me at all.
- Evan
------------------------------
Message: 20
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:47:42 -0500
From: Warren Wolfe <wizard at voyager.net>
Subject: Re: lisadraw
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <1162972062.2911.69.camel at linux.site>
Content-Type: text/plain
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 22:18 -0700, woodelf wrote:
Richard wrote:
Speaking of which... People used to be amazed that I
could count in hex on my fingers. Remember that? 0... 1...
2 (pardon me, no offense intended)... 3... 4... 5, and so on.
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
------------------------------
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:54:26 -0500
From: Warren Wolfe <wizard at voyager.net>
Subject: Re: OT: Where have electronics hobby stores gone?
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <1162972466.2911.73.camel at linux.site>
Content-Type: text/plain
On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 14:40 -0500, jwhitton wrote:
You're not a user. You're a geek. You
don't count! ;-)
Umm... Just in HEX do they count! Nerds are binary! I agree.., I'm appalled that RS has
abandoned the hobbyist. It
seems to be the trend..., retailers so driven by profit numbers and
markets that they abandon those who put them in business in
the first
place. I've started haunting hamfests and
buying almost any dip
package logic I run across. If I needed ANY ordinary 74xx
piece, there
is no longer any place that it could be purchased
where I live.
*Maybe* as an outrageously priced ECG part from the one or two
remaining repair shops..., but that's it. Sad...., and it bodes ill
for the sort of Science Fair / Boy Scout level projects that kids
might want to do..., oh, wait, I forgot, they've got video
games and
the Internet..
Hey, it's worse than that. I recall seeing, about a year
ago, an ad for an electronics project SIMULATOR in Windows
software. You build the project, and it pretends to run it,
and does what real components would do, producing a signal on
screen, and as sound, if appropriate. *SIGH*
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
------------------------------
Message: 22
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 08:54:11 +0000
From: Adrian Graham <witchy at binarydinosaurs.co.uk>
Subject: Re: lisadraw
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <C1774BB3.55EB%witchy at binarydinosaurs.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 8/11/06 01:37, "Chris M" <chrism3667 at yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, but let's be specific. Who has spent
>$200 for a
piece of equipment, software, hardware, paraphenalia,
whatever, that
was at least 15 years old? I want to say 20+, but
let's
make it easy.
And not for work/profit...for umm, pleasure (?).
I for one
qualify. oi
*raises hand*
I paid a bit more than I was comfortable with for an Acorn
BBC Master Turbo, but it WAS a machine owned by the BBC and
used for the creation of titles and suchlike for the famed
BBC Domesday Project in 1985 and therefore one of less than
20 produced in that format. Sadly I haven't found anyone yet
who can remember what software it used to run its genlock....
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home
computer collection?
------------------------------
Message: 23
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:19:05 +0100
From: "Gooijen, Henk" <henk.gooijen at oce.com>
Subject: PDP-11/44 problem - RUN stays on
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID:
<447524F844B59D48B8F7AE7F560935EE084880D3 at OVL-EXBE01.ocevenlo.oce.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Yesterday evening I had a look at my sick 11/44.
The notes I had kept said that the VT100 displays
"?CP didn't start". I already knew that this is the
typical bus hang condition, so I opened the BA11 box.
I was surprised to see the FP11 board (I did not know
I had that one), but I also saw that the last slot of
the CPU backplane has a G727 ... I remember that in
that quad slot had been the TU80 controller, sure an
NPR device. So, I pulled the G727 and inserted a G7273,
and pushed all other boards firmly into place.
A few boards actually moved a little (say, 1 mm).
Powering up ...
the 11/44 shows the ">>>" prompt and is responsive,
but I was too lazy to unlock the heads of the RA81
and tension the motor/spindle belt. The RA81 is the
boot device for the 11/44. The system has an RL02 so I
tried >>>B DL0: but then the 11/44 shows on the VT100
"no such PROM" (IIRC, or something close like this).
OK, I was glad not to see "?CP didn't start" anymore,
and I turned off the machine.
Half an hour later I had thought of entering the
boot code for the RL02, so I turned the 11/44 back on.
However, ... besides the DC ON light, the RUN light
stays ON too. I am sure the RUN light should go OFF.
It does not matter if the switch is in the HALT or
CONT position at power up.
The VT100 only displays:
(Console V3.40C)
(Program)
and nothing more, no ">>>" prompt anymore!
Also, the FAULT lamp on the RL02 drive stays ON.
In the normal behaviour, the FAULT lamp is OFF, and if
you toggle the switch to the "BOOT" position, the FAULT
lamp will flash ON briefly.
The TK50 (also connected to the 11/44) flashes the red
push button lamp and after a few seconds the red lamp
goes OFF and the green LED goes ON.
Now, in its faulty state the TK50 still behaves the same
when I push the switch to the BOOT position, but the RL02
drive keeps the FAULT light ON.
As the FAULT lamp stays ON of the RL02, I am *guessing*
that the 11/44 does not issue a "reset", keeping the CPU
hung, and the RL11 controller ...?
Where do I start?
What are the obvious things in this machine?
Don't read this line Tony. I have 2 spare set 11/44 CPUs.
thanks for any hints!
- Henk, PA8PDP.
This message and attachment(s) are intended solely for the
use of the addressee and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure
under applicable law.
If you are not the intended recipient or agent thereof
responsible for delivering this message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender immediately by telephone and with a "reply"
message.
Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------------
Message: 24
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:34:12 +0100
From: "Gooijen, Henk" <henk.gooijen at oce.com>
Subject: RE: PDP-11/44 problem - RUN stays on
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID:
<447524F844B59D48B8F7AE7F560935EE084880D4 at OVL-EXBE01.ocevenlo.oce.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sorry, one follow-up on my own message.
I forgot to mention that I searched the classiccmp archive,
but was not successful. I remember a thread about a voltage
comparator issue on the CIM (M7090), but could not find it.
Perhaps that was on usenet ... I must take a look at the
M7090 electrical diagram!
- Henk.
This message and attachment(s) are intended solely for the
use of the addressee and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure
under applicable law.
If you are not the intended recipient or agent thereof
responsible for delivering this message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender immediately by telephone and with a "reply"
message.
Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------------
Message: 25
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:54:16 +0000
From: Pete Turnbull <pete at dunnington.plus.com>
Subject: Re: New monitors on old machines
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <4551A948.3040103 at dunnington.plus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Roger Merchberger wrote:
Rumor has it that Allison may have mentioned
these words:
7) Three
way switch at the other enough of the hall.
It's already on a three-way switch with the bottom of the they make 4-way switches?
You mean a two-way switch (single pole, double throw), and
yes there is
a way to have three or more, if you use DPDT switches or a crossover
switch in the middle. Over here, the major manufacturers make
"crossover" or "changeover" light switches for exactly this purpose:
Conventional use of two two-way (SPDT) switches:
o-------------o
LIVE --------o--- ---o----------- BULB ------ NEUTRAL
o-------------o
If one switch is "up" and the other is "down", the light is off
If both switches are "up", the light is on
If both switches are "down", the light is on
Actually it's usually wired with one switch the other way up, so the
light is on if one is "up" and the other "down":
o---. .------o
LIVE --------o--- \/ ---o----------- BULB ------ NEUTRAL
o____/\o______o
Using three (or more) switches:
o----------o|o----------o
LIVE --------o--- --- ---o----- BULB ---- NEUTRAL
o----------o|o----------o
^^^^^^
crossover switch
connects upper left to upper right (and LL to LR)
or lower left to upper right (and UL to LR)
If one end switch is "up", and the other is "down", the
crossover
switch in the middle can switch current from the upper leg to the
lower, and turn the light on.
Another layout with a DPDT:
o--------------.------
o----------o--- |
LIVE --------o--- : o--------.------------
o------+ : | |
| : o--------+ |
+---o--- |
o--------------+
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
a DPDT switch with wiring arranged to switch
current from upper leg to lower leg
('o's are contacts, '.'s are connections,
':'s represent the mechanical
linkage between
the poles)
You can extend this ad infinitum with additional crossover or
DPDT switches.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
------------------------------
Message: 26
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 06:55:30 -0500
From: "Dave Dunfield" <dave06a at dunfield.com>
Subject: Re: imaging XENIX disks
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <200611081100.kA8B0GEH005230 at hosting.monisys.ca>
> I made images of the Xenix disks I have for
my Altos
> with ImageDisk and it worked for me.
Oohhh.. which Altos would this be ? I'm
looking for Xenix for my
Altos 886.
It's a 586 - and unfortunately I don't have a full set of
install media - just a couple of "homemade" disks that I got
with the machine, one of which boots (IIRC).
As I understand it Altos Xenix (for the 886) at
least was
quad density
disks. 80 tracks, double density. Should be
able to image
them using
a 1.2M 5.25" PC floppy as long as software
can understand
the format
(I'd think it should do it anyway).
ImageDisk has no problem reading/writing 80 track DD on
1.2M drives.
Dave
--
dave06a (at) Dave Dunfield
dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools:
www.dunfield.com
com Collector of vintage computing equipment:
http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/index.html
------------------------------
Message: 27
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:18:35 -0500
From: Ray Arachelian <ray at arachelian.com>
Subject: Re: lisadraw
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <4551CB1B.5060405 at arachelian.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Warren Wolfe wrote:
It's too bad, in a way. The effort put into the Lisa was
gargantuan, and directed very well. On its own, it was a great
product. It was just the user interface which was
appropriated without
permission.
I'm not sure that the
above is correct. All the historical
sources point to the exact opposite. Steve Jobs gave Xerox a
ton of Apple stock to "sort of open the kimono at Xerox
PARC." It was allowed and well known, and if you read the
stories on folklore.org and compare a Star or an Alto to a
Lisa you'll find there are vast differences in the UI. It
simply wasn't just copied, much less without permission.
------------------------------
Message: 28
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 08:06:13 -0600
From: John Foust <jfoust at threedee.com>
Subject: Re: lisadraw
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20061108080409.05c93e50 at mail>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii;
x-avg-checked=avg-ok-71884434
At 01:19 PM 11/7/2006, der Mouse wrote:
There are at least two PC operating systems that
cost $0 and work
perfectly well on hardware that's available for $0 because
the latest
bloatware no longer runs tolerably on it.
I don't know what's with you retro kids these days. Back in
the old days, speed was cool. You wanted a faster machine.
Now that the most whizzy machines are 1/100th the price (in
inflation-adjusted
dollars) you're still playing with the stuff in the dumpster.
Programs still start more quickly on a faster CPU.
- John
------------------------------
Message: 29
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:24:10 -0600
From: Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Someone want to 'splain this one to me?
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <4551A23A.7030207 at yahoo.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Re: Someone want to 'splain this one to me?
hmm, I might if I could be bothered to wait the few minutes
it takes for a web
browser to load on this old beastie :-)
From the mention of ebay in the URL I'm guessing that it's some
way-overpriced item that can be purchased *far* cheaper
elsewhere, quite
possibly in superior form (faster, more reliable, more flexible etc.).
At least, that's the usual situation whenever ebay and
puzzlement occur in the
same message :-)
"It doesn't have to make sense - people will still buy it"
should be ebay's
marketing slogan...
------------------------------
Message: 30
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:27:24 -0500
From: Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Someone want to 'splain this one to me?
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <4551E94C.2070405 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Sorry for harping on an old topic, but this
really has me mystified:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320044031900
Prices on old new-in-box hardware always tends to get a little wonky.
Peace... Sridhar
------------------------------
Message: 31
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:30:25 -0600
From: Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: lisadraw
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <4551A3B1.4050706 at yahoo.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Richard wrote:
In article <C17524C0.9D71%aek at
bitsavers.org>,
Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> writes:
> I'm not saying this is a GOOD thing (this is one of the
reasons I'm
at the
Museum and not a start-up) it is just the way products are
built today.
I'll say its a good thing, otherwise a PC with an operating system
would still cost $10K, instead of $300.