23 Apr
2016
23 Apr
'16
10:29 a.m.
On 04/23/2016 10:25 AM, tony duell wrote:
I'd be comfortable with that *if* I couldn't acquire a terminal for the
system - and I'd prefer to use a period terminal over an emulator even if
it wasn't necessarily the correct one for the machine. It's all about
recreating the original 'experience' as closely as possible, I suppose.
Now upgrades
within the realm of what would have been possible during a
system's lifetime I can get on board with - using period components to
implement things such as Ethernet interfaces, accelerators, extra memory etc...
I'm with you on this, generally...
...
However, how far do you go (I am asking, I am not sure of the answer). Is it
'OK' to use a modern machine running a terminal emulator in place of a
real contemporary-to-the-machine terminal What about mass storage
units that just connect to a peripheral interface (I am thinking of things
like the HPIB-interfaced drives on HP9000/200 machnes).
Personally I'm planning on keeping period storage around and using it for
as long as I can. There will come a day when it's not realistic/possible to
do that, but I'm really not interested in emulating a vintage drive with
something that uses a CF card (say) if I don't have to.
Should you
not use modern machines and compilers to cross-develop software for
classic computers?
Hmm. I don't have any problem with using modern hardware for the
development side of it - but I'm not entirely sure *why* I feel that way;
logically I fell like I should object to it :-)
Should you only use test gear that was contemporary
with the machine (so no DSO's when working on classics, I should not
use my (ancient) logic analysers, even less the LogicDart on my
PDP11s)?
I've got no problem at all with modern test equipment; I consider fixing
the hardware to be a separate thing to using it, I suppose (even though I'd
be inclined to say that I get far more enjoyment out of restoring vintage
systems than I do once they're 100% operational).
cheers
Jules