14 Jun
2009
14 Jun
'09
11:03 a.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
I am a hardware hacker, pure and simple. I regard classic computers as
being interesting, complicated, but still understandable bits of
electronics. The fact they run programs is _not_ why I am primarily
interested in them.
This is why I prefer machines with CPUs built from lots of small chips.
You can't do much with a big ASIC containing much of the logic. But a
couple of boartds of TTL and 2900 series can be investigated.
It's also why I can find as much interest in, say, the analog computer
(and I don't think that's exagerating) in the servo system of an RK07
drive as in the PDP11 that's linked to it. They're both interesting (to
me) bits of electronics.
It's one reason I have little interest in emulators _myself_ . Another
reason is that emulators here would run slower than the real hardware for
just about any classic computer. Don;t get me wrong, I have no problem
with people who write emulators or with people who enjoy using them. It's
just not what _I_ want to do.
On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Warren Wolfe wrote:
Well don't get me wrong, I'm not poo-pooing emulators. I use them
all the time. I just don't find them to be a replacement for real
hardware. :)
True enough. They certainly don't WEIGH as much, for instance... <Grin>
Well,
for "classic OSs". Some of us are actually interested in
the hardware. ;)
Well, sure. The hardware is there, although not progressing,
either. But, the end result and purpose of computer hardware is to
run software. At least we've got THAT going for us. If nothing
else, having a functional equivalent emulator allows one to work out
software for the hardware involved, and do it faster, on a "bigger"
machine, so when the hardware comes up, you can just load it up and
go... Don't expect to make me feel guilty about being more easily
able to enjoy my hobby than you. Won't happen. <Grin> Now, bedtime...
Seriously, though, for me, the majority of "the computer experience" was
obtained over a serial line of some sort, except for my VDM-1 card in
Ah, but wouldn';t you like to own whatever was at the end of that serial
line? Not an emulator of it, but the real machine? And discover just what
it was like to keep it running, etc..
the IMSAI 8080. So, an emulator, if it is a good one,
does well for
me. That being said, I do collect old hardware, also. It's just much
"harder" for me.
Also, Al had some good points, ESPECIALLY when it comes to mainframish
computers. If you are a lover of, just to pick one, a PDP 11/45
machine, if you pass on your love for the machine to a young person,
that person becomes a serious competitor for EVERY bit of kit you need,
That seems like a very selfish attidude. I assume you're not saying that
we shouldn't encourage new people into the hobby since they'll compete
with us for nice machine. Certainly I don't feel that way at all.
from now on. In other words, non-frustrated hardware
hobbyists are
strictly limited by the number, and cost, of working or repairable
hardware platforms. But, if there is an emulator for the PDP 11/45,
everybody on the planet could become a fan of running the software on an
Yes, but the emulator won't allow you to stick in a KM11, put one of the
CPU boards on an extender and probe arround will single-stepping at the
clock cycle level. You won't have the fun of replacing a disk head and
doing the alingment. You won't have to chase grants up and down the
backplane.
emulator, one that runs on mass-produced (hence CHEAP
and available)
hardware. Software can be copied and shared. Hardware, not so much. I
also note that classic computer buffs who go the software route can have
"machines" with plenty of memory and disk space, and can avoid all the
If I wantede a machine with plenty of memoery, disk space and only
problems I hadn't a hope of fixing, I'd buy a PC, and run PC software on
it....
-tony