23 Jun
2007
23 Jun
'07
5:15 a.m.
"Liam Proven" <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/06/07, Tim Shoppa <tshoppa at wmata.com>
wrote:
I occasionally get worried about that sort of attitude. I understand
wanting to relate to what we collect. I understand that not everyone
has the same background as I do in process and industrial control.
But... I feel that if collectors/museums concentrate only on their
narrow definition of "computer", they will neglect all the stuff
that led to computers. Right now, because a lot of this stuff was
designed with 50 to 100 year lifespans (maybe not designed intentionally
but that's what it's working out to), much of it is still in service,
but I can see just a few years from now that a lot of it will be gone.
Some of the more interesting military special-purpose computers
are being preserved (e.g. Norden bombsights) along with historical
context, but almost nothing else is.
Tim.
My taste for the last several years is to play
around with
1: dedicated industrial logic (e.g. elevator and machine controllers)
2: Analog computers
3: Electromechanical stuff, especially if somewhat programmable
Now, none of the above are things with video screens and
keyboards, and in most cases they don't even have readily
recognized "instruction sets", but they all do computing in a
pre-Von-Neumann sense.
Well, true, but they're not really general-purpose computers, as I
specified. I know there's all sorts of weirdness once you leave the
world of the desktop (or server), but it's not anything I can really
relate to or get interested in myself.