24 Apr
2009
24 Apr
'09
12:59 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren Wolfe" <lists at databasics.us>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: The General Approach to Computing - A Ramble
Hello, All,
I'm glad my first post on this topic started some discussion. I'm less
glad that I apparently didn't do a very good job of communicating. Let me
clear up a bit, if I may.
First, I'm not a Luddite, or troglodyte, or anything similar. I love
using the finest, newest devices of all kinds, including computers. And,
while I like playing with the old computers, and fixing them, nothing
beats screaming speed in a personal computer.
I didn't think you were a Ludite, and honeslty I don't care for the newest
of anything unless it has a function that does something for ME. Plenty of
times I skip a few generations of product untill something I want is
included that makes me want to buy it (stereo surround technology for one).
Teo Zenios writes:
You can fix anything sold today if you want to spend a bunch of
money for equipment to deal with surface mount chips (BGA type
equipment is not cheap). You can get spare parts (or boards to
desolder parts from) at a recycler or ebay. Most people do not go
that route because it is not economical and they don't have the
skills or time to do it anyway. It is also much easier to
troubleshoot something that only has a few chips on it, compared to
the older stuff. I have an Atari 65XE in parts currently and a
Commodore 1750 REU in parts waiting for sockets to redo the RAM. The
65XE was broke when I got it and I want to fix it, it would be
easier just to buy a working one but I like to tinker anyway.
My background is as a National Institute of Standards and Technology
Calibration Technician. Call me fixed in my ways if you like, but I
prefer finding a (small) failed component, getting a replacement for under
a dollar, and spending an hour or two troubleshooting and fixing
equipment. I no longer have the spare space to keep a few dead copies of
all my live equipment. I never cared much for cannibalizing equipment.
It seems somehow... sacreligious.
I don't mind canibalizing equipment destined for recycling anyway. In the
68k mac group I frequent there have been numerous conversations between
people who say all the old machines should be saved and people like me who
think the vast majority should be recycled leaving enough decent working
equipment for collectors to use and pass around. We don't need a million LC
III macs sitting in garages and basements all over the world, but there
should be enough so that they are not super rare and cost $10K on ebay
(people should be able to buy a unit to experience it if they want to). At
some point you have to quit hoarding and keep what you actually use. We
should keep those units that do servive working and have access to the
software and manuals to make then usable.
Now, if I find the bad component, it's likely to be a $50 chip, compared
with a new $60 board replacement. While it gets things working again,
it's just not as much fun as it was to find a part that was close to free
to replace, and replace that part... a personal taste issue, that. I
didn't expect I'd need to explain that mind-set HERE, of all places,
though.
I understand what you are saying. Quite a bit of my collection is equipment
I got for barely over shipping or free locally because it had simple problem
the owner could not figure out or didn't want to because it wasn't worth his
time. Examples are 68K macs that just needed capacitors replaced, a mint
IIfx with 2 new PRAM batteries installed but one was backwards so it would
not start up, thinkpad laptops where a guy got a new power socket but didn't
use flux so the solder job didn't work, powermac with a frayed IDE cable
under the motherboard shorting out most of the time, 8MB RAM card for a
Apple IIgs that had a dirty connector that took 1 minute to clean, etc etc.
There isn't a person here that has not found a deal that was an easy fix.
For newer equipment I am kind of shocked how many people toss out perfectly
good hardware because of software issues that a reformat will fix. Still if
I can replace something cheaper then it costs to fix it then that is fine
with me too.
I don't want to go back to the old days when machines were slow and
unreliable, when you had to fix a machine just to be able to use it.
Neither do I. On the other hand, I tend to think hardware progress has
been TOO fast, and that software, because of the speed of the hardware, is
immensely sloppy and inefficient, to a degree I find amazing. Some years
back, I was looking at a setup for a Microsoft programming environment.
It came on five CDs, IIRC, and I couldn't help thinking of Turbo Pascal
for CP/M, wich came on a single floppy, and had an editor, compiler, and
debugger in about 56 K of programming space. The efficiency factor
difference is stunning. I believe that a bit more time at each
'watermark' of hardware progress would result in tightening of software
efficiency to improve product performance, rather than just waiting for
the next generation of PC hardware to hide one's poorly-written code.
Again, that might just be me...
Go get an embedded computer or program your phone of you like simple
hardware and simple software.
I think hardware progress has stalled for a long time, instead of new
architectures or new CPU designs we generally just have die shrinks,
multiple cores, and new material to make the same old thing a bit faster
(mostly spinning its wheels or bogging down in GUI hell). When intel tried a
new way with the Itanium it was stillborn (has Intel designed anything
besides the original x86 that did well?).
There are millions of people driving cars that have no idea how to
do anything other then put gas in it and maybe change the oil. Why
should computer (another tool like a car) be any different today?
Think about what you're saying... There ARE people who like to futz
around with their cars, like I like to futz with my computer. All the
people like that I know are not happy about computer control of the
engine, as it makes it difficult to the point of near impossibility for an
individual to work on their own car, and expect good results. That *IS*
like a car, isn't it? There is something to be said for simplicity enough
to be within one's skill set to repair with objects at hand. One of my
friend's father was stranded in the desert with car trouble, and used a
couple of gum foils, a paperclip, and a couple of rubber bands to patch it
up until they could get to a service station. How cool is that? Today,
unless someone is packing a spare CPU for his model car, one would be
coyote bait in the same situation.
The thing is cars have to be safer, and more efficient. You do not get
efficient without designing specialized parts that help optimize the
combustion chamber (fuel injection, temperature compensated air flow
sensors, etc). If your air flow sensor packs it in no amount of tin foil and
bubble gum is going to fix it, that is the price we pay.
I do like working on my toy car (1981 corvette with an old simple V8 and 4
barrel carb and simple disc breaks). The thing is I would rather have a
daily driver with a smaller more efficient enguine (I cannot fix) that gets
good gas milage and has anti lock breaks (that I don't know how to work on
either). The Corvette I can drive during the weekend for fun.
What I was getting at with the car analogy is that some people wish we had
simple systems for what they care about, but want the most cheap reliable
and efficient setup for the things they just use and have no attachment to.
Most of the old gear heads working on cars loved the old V8's since they
could tear into them and fix anything, yet could care less what is under the
hood of their computer as long as the web and email work.
We have not progressed smoothly -- rather, each area has gone off on its
own, totally separate from all other areas. I could get behind a
technology base where you could carry a few spare processors, and program
them with your cellphone to run your car, or your PC, or your GPS unit,
just by loading the correct program into it. But, nothing is even
similar, let alone identical today. I can't help but think we took a
wrong turn dictated to us by hyper-speed progress.
I think you will only get that simplicity and portability when one company
owns the whole market and all the material and supply chains that go with
it. If Microsoft had enough money to buy Apple, GE, Intel, Motorola (or
whatever they are called today), Nokia, etc you will have a Microsoft
everything in the house running on Windows and all networked and interfaced
to your TV remote. Do you realy want that much control from one Corperation?
In true capitalism that is what we would end up with (hence anti trust and
monopoly laws).
Efficient progress would have dictated that we make the most of a much
smaller number of available parts, each with multiple uses. Is that so
hard? Somehow, I think not. And the benefits would be amazing. Hardware
leaping ahead of software has given us a dictatorial Microsoft, and
stifled the development of software better than Windows for many years.
Slower hardware development (25% improvement per year, perhaps) would have
forced competition on software vendors, to the detriment of Microsoft. It
would be interesting to compare the two, but the world doesn't have a
"control."
Peace,
Warren
Efficiency means the smallest amount of specialized parts to do the job
(which is how we get a network card with a single chip and that's about it).
What you are talking about is not efficiency but taking hardware down to
single functions and using a bunch of them in combinations until you get
something to work. I have an old Micronics ASIC 486 DX ISA only board with a
ton of chips all over it, and much later 486 PCI boards with a few chips
that do what all that other mess did on the Micronics board and then some.
You would probably like the Micronics because you could fix it easier, I
like the newer version because the board was smaller, faster, uses more
common 72 pin RAM, had more functions, and was cheaper. I kept the ASIC
board because it has a socket for a Weitek processor I wanted to mess with,
which is obsolete in the newer faster 486 systems so no socket.
TZ