14 Dec
2015
14 Dec
'15
10:11 a.m.
From: Mike
The one question I do have for the older gentlemen on
here is what in
the world did the computers without a screen to look at do?
There are a number of different generations, and the way they were used
generally depended on what the computer in question had for I/O capabilities.
In the very earliest machines, the computations tended to be mathematical
modeling; things that needed a lot of computing, but had very modest I/O
requirements. The classic example was the hydrogen bomb calculations
performed on ENIAC (which was originally built to do ballistics
computations), but other similar ones included structural modeling, etc.
That class of application continued (and does so, to this day), but over
time, more and more things got done using computers, as their capabilities
(online storage, I/O, etc) grew. In general, the new applications were added
to the existing ones, but did not supplant the earlier ones.
Starting with a computer in England called LEO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEO_(computer)
they were also applied to business applications (inventory, payroll, billing,
etc), which typically did more modest computations, but more I/O, which
required better I/O capability (cards, tapes, printers, etc).
With the advent of timesharing in the early 1960's, it became common to add
individual character-output terminals (initially printing, moving mostly to
video terminals circa the mid-70's), and with the ability of users to
interact with applications running on a computer, applications broadened even
further; online text preparation was one common one.
The final phase came with the introduction of bit-mapped video terminals,
which allowed the interactive users to use graphics, and images; the very
earliest such systems were on time-sharing mainframes, but with the growth of
personal computers, that technology migrated there (note that the very
earlist PC's had only character-output terminals, mimicing their main-frame
big brothers of the time).
Noel
14 Dec
14 Dec
10:34 a.m.
The subject brought up the thought of how many display-less computers we
encounter every day without giving it a thought. I think that probably
100 would be a safe bet.
Looking over past this screen, I see my network hub, mouse, keyboard and
heaven knows how many display-less computers inside the actual shell of
my PC.
I can't honestly say how many computers my car uses.
Probably 100 is much too low.
--Chuck
11:05 a.m.
On Dec 14, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist
at sydex.com> wrote:
The subject brought up the thought of how many display-less computers we encounter every
day without giving it a thought. I think that probably 100 would be a safe bet.
Looking over past this screen, I see my network hub, mouse, keyboard and heaven knows how
many display-less computers inside the actual shell of my PC.
I can't honestly say how many computers my car uses.
Probably 100 is much too low.
--Chuck
You know Chuck that is a extremely great point that never even crossed my mind! Come to
think about my "pen mouse" probably has mor power than most computers before
1980 lol that Mr Chuck is a thing I will think about for a long time because if you think
about it almost everything we touch has some kind of a computer cycle! ! ! GREAT POINT!!!
12:16 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Mike <tulsamike3434 at gmail.com> wrote:
Even lighting... I've pulled (and reused!) 8-pin PIC microcontrollers
out of discarded emergency lighting. "In the old days", a switching
supply might have a 555 timer for an oscillator. These days, an 8-pin
uC is cheap ($0.75 or far less) and allows the behavior to be changed
without a soldering iron, or allows the hardware design to be
completed and sent out for manufacture before the software is
complete. If you want to change the frequency of a 555 oscillator,
you have to design in a potentiometer or remove and install different
value components. If you want to change the frequency of a uC
oscillator, you reprogram it (or if you have enough pins, design in
some removable jumpers).
Short version is, even the cheap and simple 555 has been replaced in
many products with a cheap-as-or-cheaper-than microcontroller, not
because it's simpler, but because it allows for greater flexibility
and reduces the overall product cost.
-ethan
On Dec 14,
2015, at 12:34 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
The subject brought up the thought of how many display-less computers we encounter every
day without giving it a thought. I think that probably 100 would be a safe bet.
Looking over past this screen, I see my network hub, mouse, keyboard and heaven knows how
many display-less computers inside the actual shell of my PC.
.... if you think about it almost everything we touch has some kind of a computer cycle!
! ! GREAT POINT!!! 
2:16 p.m.
And think of all the PDP-8s *still* buried in the control units of
factories across the world. The majority of these machines had no
displays, not even teleprinters. Some had custom controls wired in through
stock or custom modules, and some had no more "UI" than the front panel
("set switches 2 and 3 to the 'on' position and press the 'run'
key").
Some didn't even have that - the stock 8/m was a turnkey system. The
reasoning was the same as that behind the microcontroller replacing the
555: complex behavior could be modeled in software rather than intricate
analog elements, and it was easy to change things if you needed to (e.g.,
if you changed out an instrument or effector. -- Ian
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Mike
<tulsamike3434 at gmail.com> wrote:
--
Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate
The Information School <http://ischool.uw.edu>
Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical
Narrative Through a Design Lens
Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal <http://tribunalvoices.org>
Value Sensitive Design Research Lab <http://vsdesign.org>
University of Washington
There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."
> On Dec 14, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Chuck Guzis
<cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
>
> The subject brought up the thought of how many display-less computers
we
encounter every day without giving it a thought. I think that probably
100 would be a safe bet.
> Looking over past this screen, I see my
network hub, mouse, keyboard
and heaven knows how many display-less computers
inside the actual shell of
my PC.
.... if you think about it almost everything we touch has some kind of a
computer
cycle! ! ! GREAT POINT!!!
Even lighting... I've pulled (and reused!) 8-pin PIC microcontrollers
out of discarded emergency lighting. "In the old days", a switching
supply might have a 555 timer for an oscillator. These days, an 8-pin
uC is cheap ($0.75 or far less) and allows the behavior to be changed
without a soldering iron, or allows the hardware design to be
completed and sent out for manufacture before the software is
complete. If you want to change the frequency of a 555 oscillator,
you have to design in a potentiometer or remove and install different
value components. If you want to change the frequency of a uC
oscillator, you reprogram it (or if you have enough pins, design in
some removable jumpers).
Short version is, even the cheap and simple 555 has been replaced in
many products with a cheap-as-or-cheaper-than microcontroller, not
because it's simpler, but because it allows for greater flexibility
and reduces the overall product cost.
-ethan
3:53 p.m.
I spent a lot of time in my early career on Allen-Bradley PLC 3's & 5's. They
were definitely computers - no screens, and obviously purpose built for process control.
But then I started thinking... the HP 2100's that are the focus of my collecting, very
often (usually, actually) didn't have system consoles. They were used primarily for
test & measurement. And this wasn't just the earliest models; I acquired quite a
few later full rack (21MX/E) systems that did not have a console board in them. They were
booted via switch register settings and set about their task. Various changes to operation
were made strictly via switch register.
Then I recalled one of the early Educational BASIC HP systems (No, not TSB). It accepted
BASIC programs from punched cards *only*. Output was to the printer. I can't recall
what it was. I believe it used a TTY for initial configuration, but not thereafter.
In any case... early computers without screens weren't necessarily so
"early" in the scheme of things, and often did process control and test &
measurement :)
J
5:21 p.m.
On 12/14/2015 03:53 PM, Jay West wrote:
In any case... early computers without screens
weren't necessarily so
"early" in the scheme of things, and often did process control and
test & measurement :)
The IBM 1710 didn't have a screen; neither did the 1800.
Personally, I think the world is GUI-addicted.
--Chuck
4:31 p.m.
On 12/14/2015 08:21 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 12/14/2015 03:53 PM, Jay West wrote:
Chuck If I may ask...
What would you do with a home no screen computer? I mean what could be
done with one that would benefit your work / hobby. I mean NO DISREPECT
by asking this question.
In any case... early computers without screens
weren't necessarily so
"early" in the scheme of things, and often did process control and
test & measurement :)
The IBM 1710 didn't have a screen; neither did the 1800.
Personally, I think the world is GUI-addicted.
--Chuck
9:27 p.m.
On 12/14/2015 04:31 PM, Mike wrote:
What would you do with a home no screen computer? I
mean what could
be done with one that would benefit your work / hobby. I mean NO
DISREPECT by asking this question.
I saw plenty of early home computers with TTY or Selectric I/O. If you
could find a timesharing service to hook your home up in the 60s and
early 70s, it was probably with a TTY. (Anyone remember Call Computer
in Mountain View?)
Consider, for example the Honeywell H-316 "kitchen computer" from 1969:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_316
To the best of my knowledge, it was more of a concept than a real
product. But no screen, notice?
Legions of high-school and college students before about the mid-70s had
no access to screens. If you didn't use punched cards, you probably
used a TTY.
But then, video output was rare for employees of the computer
manufacturers. Too expensive.
Paper--lots of it. You did your serious programming with pencil and
paper, then punched or entered it. That was the old IDE. Considering
the amount of code written, it wasn't too bad.
--Chuck
15 Dec
15 Dec
9:22 a.m.
What would you do with a home no screen computer? I
mean what could
be done with one that would benefit your work / hobby. I mean NO
DISREPECT by asking this question.
Use the lights.
Wish for a teletype
Buy Don Lancaster's books (How many copies did he sell?)
Not having a screen made it a little more difficult to answer the
inevitable, "What is it good for?" "What can you do with it?"
The answer of course was that a hobby/home computer had exactly the same
usefulness as a model train going round and round. You could speculate
about maybe someday making the train deliver beer, or making the
home/hobby computer do "home automation" (turn lights on and off) or
bookkeeping, or filing recipes, keeping track of phone numbers, etc.
Most of the "uses" were better handled by magnets on the door of the
refrigerator.
Once you had a screen and printer, word processing became the first
practical use, followed by Visicalc and Flight Simulator.
1:39 a.m.
On 15/12/2015 00:31, Mike wrote:
On 12/14/2015 08:21 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I started with computers around 1964. It depends what you
define as a
screen.
From the first UK computer (U of M circa 1948) many systems had screens.
They were oscilloscope tube based. The first one's I know of showed a
line of dots
Dot present = 1 No dot =0 they were probably register displays.
So right away you are into binary. Its the underlying foundation of all
digital computers.
Lamps and switches are all you need for binary and boy is binary useful!!
Analog computers are interesting but you really need degree level maths
to get the best out of them.
Rod Smallwood
On 12/14/2015 03:53 PM, Jay West wrote:
Chuck If I may ask...
What would you do with a home no screen computer? I mean what could be
done with one that would benefit your work / hobby. I mean NO DISREPECT
by asking this question. In any case... early computers without screens
weren't necessarily so
"early" in the scheme of things, and often did process control and
test & measurement :)
The IBM 1710 didn't have a screen; neither did the
1800.
Personally, I think the world is GUI-addicted.
--Chuck
9:23 a.m.
On 12/14/2015 06:31 PM, Mike wrote:
What would you do with a home no screen computer? I mean what could be
done with one that would benefit your work / hobby. I mean NO DISREPECT
by asking this question.
Well, that would severely limit things. But, it could still
be useful. I have one app that runs on my home
everything-server, that doesn't have a normal screen. It
takes temperature, humidity and energy consumption
measurements and records them to a file every 15 seconds.
it also puts time, date, temp and humidity on some
20-character LCD screens around the house. So, that is SORT
OF a screen, but not in the traditional sense of an
interactive terminal.
My laser photoplotter has no screen or other HMI connected
to it, just a network cable. So, I log into it from another
computer to make artwork films.
A lot of people have 3D printers with no screen at all, or a
very limited LCD screen that lets them set a few options and
shows the percentage progress of the build.
Oh, for the lowest possible case, I have a
computer-controlled air compressor. This is an AVR chip
which manages starting/stopping the motor and
loading/unloading the compressor valves. (This is called
automatic dual-mode control, when the tank is full, it
unloads the compressor and leaves the motor running for a
minute to see if there is more demand for air before
shutting it off.)
Jon
9:13 p.m.
What would you do with a home no screen computer?
Depends on what counts as a "screen". If any visible output counts,
there isn't much - but I suspect you don't want to go that far.
You can connect to it from other computers. I have six machines
running right now with no screens on them (though four of them have the
host-side hardware for a screen).
You can talk to it with a terminal. If a video-display terminal counts
as a screen, use a printing terminal.
You can use whatever output it _does_ have. I had (I've since passed
it along to someone who appreciated it more than I did) a PDP-8/f. It
had a row of lights which functioned as an output device. Another
machine I used in the past had a small LED display, something like one
line of twenty characters (though that may count as a screen).
I'm sure I've missed some options....
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
16 Dec
16 Dec
10:24 a.m.
On 12/15/2015 09:13 PM, Mouse wrote:
It's also occurred to me that without screens, we might be better off
today (oh boy, am I going to get flack on this one).
We might be in the position of being more concise in our computer
output. A "screen" is an output device--really, ordinary human input
devices haven't changed much. The average web-surfing experience blasts
the user with tons of filigree and useless data, but very little useful
information.
Don't forget that the first games were text-only. Web sites that have
multi-megabyte splash screens that serve no purpose other than tell you
that you've arrived. It's like your local Walmart hiring a marching
band to greet every single customer individually. Data is cheap and
Parkinson's law applies.
--Chuck
What would you
do with a home no screen computer?
Depends on what counts as a "screen". If any visible output counts,
there isn't much - but I suspect you don't want to go that far.
You can connect to it from other computers. I have six machines
running right now with no screens on them (though four of them have
the host-side hardware for a screen).
You can talk to it with a terminal. If a video-display terminal
counts as a screen, use a printing terminal. 
3:58 p.m.
I am starting to think that the age of the PDP-8 is finally coming to
a close. The last bastion of PDP-8ness - controlling machine tools and
industrial processes - well, think about that. When was the last time
you *actually* *saw* a PDP-8 in production doing this? The US has very
little left in the way of machine shops. They have mostly all closed
up and moved to China, and the ones that survive do so because they
upgraded their machines so their productivity can trump the Chinese
currency imbalance.
I was at HGR recently, and asked about machine tools and PDP-8s, and
the salesman said it has been years since they have seen that stuff.
What is coming out now is basically 1980s technology, at the oldest.
Most of what they see is 1990s and 2000s.
Yes, there are probably a *very* few PDP-8s still out there, but I
think that population number is approaching single digits.
Here is a challenge - show me a real PDP-8 (or clone) still in active
service. I want real evidence, not hearsay. I think it would be great
if they were still out there, doing their thing, but I am very
skeptical.
--
Will
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Ian S. King <isking at uw.edu> wrote:
And think of all the PDP-8s *still* buried in the
control units of
factories across the world. The majority of these machines had no
displays, not even teleprinters. Some had custom controls wired in through
stock or custom modules, and some had no more "UI" than the front panel
("set switches 2 and 3 to the 'on' position and press the 'run'
key").
Some didn't even have that - the stock 8/m was a turnkey system. The
reasoning was the same as that behind the microcontroller replacing the
555: complex behavior could be modeled in software rather than intricate
analog elements, and it was easy to change things if you needed to (e.g.,
if you changed out an instrument or effector. -- Ian
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Mike
<tulsamike3434 at gmail.com> wrote:
--
Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate
The Information School <http://ischool.uw.edu>
Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical
Narrative Through a Design Lens
Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal <http://tribunalvoices.org>
Value Sensitive Design Research Lab <http://vsdesign.org>
University of Washington
There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China." > On Dec 14, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Chuck Guzis
<cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
>
> The subject brought up the thought of how many display-less computers
we
encounter every day without giving it a thought. I think that probably
100 would be a safe bet.
> Looking over past this screen, I see my
network hub, mouse, keyboard
and heaven knows how many display-less computers
inside the actual shell of
my PC.
.... if you think about it almost everything we touch has some kind of a
computer
cycle! ! ! GREAT POINT!!!
Even lighting... I've pulled (and reused!) 8-pin PIC microcontrollers
out of discarded emergency lighting. "In the old days", a switching
supply might have a 555 timer for an oscillator. These days, an 8-pin
uC is cheap ($0.75 or far less) and allows the behavior to be changed
without a soldering iron, or allows the hardware design to be
completed and sent out for manufacture before the software is
complete. If you want to change the frequency of a 555 oscillator,
you have to design in a potentiometer or remove and install different
value components. If you want to change the frequency of a uC
oscillator, you reprogram it (or if you have enough pins, design in
some removable jumpers).
Short version is, even the cheap and simple 555 has been replaced in
many products with a cheap-as-or-cheaper-than microcontroller, not
because it's simpler, but because it allows for greater flexibility
and reduces the overall product cost.
-ethan
16 Dec
16 Dec
4:19 p.m.
On 14 December 2015 at 23:16, Ian S. King <isking at uw.edu> wrote:
And think of all the PDP-8s *still* buried in the
control units of
factories across the world. The majority of these machines had no
displays, not even teleprinters. Some had custom controls wired in through
stock or custom modules, and some had no more "UI" than the front panel
("set switches 2 and 3 to the 'on' position and press the 'run'
key").
Some didn't even have that - the stock 8/m was a turnkey system. The
reasoning was the same as that behind the microcontroller replacing the
555: complex behavior could be modeled in software rather than intricate
analog elements, and it was easy to change things if you needed to (e.g.,
if you changed out an instrument or effector.
Much the same reason that ARM cores are widely embedded today. AIUI
it, it is typical for a modern smartphone not merely to be based on a
multicore ARM CPU, but to contain something ITRO half a dozen other
ARM cores as well.
The main CPU may well be a big.LITTLE device -- e.g. 8 cores, 4
complex superscalar fast ones which take lots of electricity, and 4
small simple dumber ones *with the same instruction set* that use very
little but have a much lower IPC, so that the phone's OS can switch
between fast cores and power-frugal cores depending on load and
available battery power.
Then the Wifi chip contains an ARM core running part of the stack, and
so does the Bluetooth chip, and so does the NFC chip, and so does the
power-management chip, and so does the battery-monitoring chip, and so
does the USB controller... etc.
ARM cores can be *very* cheap to license, and it's easier to implement
stuff in software and run it on a tiny slow ARM core than build
hardware to do it.
By the same token, a colleague and friend of mine recently discovered
this gem & Tweeted it:
Chris Williams ?@diodesign
TIL modern Intel chipsets have a hidden SPARC core (inside Intel's
Management Engine)
https://recon.cx/2014/slides/Recon%202014%20Skochinsky.pdf ? (2014)
2:59 AM - 14 Dec 2015
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) ? +420 702 829 053 (?R)
4:26 p.m.
On Dec 16, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Liam Proven <lproven
at gmail.com> wrote:
TIL modern Intel chipsets have a hidden SPARC core (inside Intel's
Management Engine)
https://recon.cx/2014/slides/Recon%202014%20Skochinsky.pdf ? (2014)
Don?t get me started on ME. Also be careful about inferring too much from
Baytrail. Other PCH?s SoCs do different things and use different uC?s. The
choices of uCs within Intel?s parts varies from generation to generation and
also between families.
TTFN - Guy
20 Dec
20 Dec
12:18 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
Short version is, even the cheap and simple 555 has
been replaced in
many products with a cheap-as-or-cheaper-than microcontroller, not
because it's simpler, but because it allows for greater flexibility
and reduces the overall product cost.
I got a bit of somewhat tongue-in-cheek flack recently over using a
PIC for my four-phase clock generator, where dedicated logic would do.
https://github.com/brouhaha/4phaseclk
I was only planning to build one or two instances of the circuit, so
it wasn't particularly cost-sensitive, but still, it seemed like using
a PIC was both the simplest and least expensive solution.
A TI SN74LS362/TIM9904 would have done the job, but I don't have any
on hand, and they're now relatively expensive and hard to get. (Anyone
have one or two pieces spare?)
14 Dec
14 Dec
12:18 p.m.
On 12/14/2015 11:34 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
The subject brought up the thought of how many
display-less computers we
encounter every day without giving it a thought. I think that probably
100 would be a safe bet.
Looking over past this screen, I see my network hub, mouse, keyboard and
heaven knows how many display-less computers inside the actual shell of
my PC.
I can't honestly say how many computers my car uses.
Probably 100 is much too low.
--Chuck
As I was debugging the fpga computer design I had, I found a feature
with the software, no warning just compile with the bug. ARG!
How ever this was code for testing a SD card interface, and since the
card was NOT working I was looking all over for doc's on SD cards
(Not SDHC cards). They now have a bunch of interface chips for them
so your little embedded controller does not have to bit bang.
Next they will create one BIG chip to control all I/O until somebody
changes the standard again.
Ben.
PS Will reply back in January when the new standards hit the market
place.PAY big $$$ for the doc's.
11:16 a.m.
On Dec 14, 2015, at 12:11 PM, jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote:
Thanks Noel for the great link and wow they still used LEO all the way up to 1981 crazy.
This is what I am talking about just the knowledge I ca soak up here. . . Man I could read
up on this stuff for years! Again thanks for the great info.
From: Mike
The one question I do have for the older
gentlemen on here is what in
the world did the computers without a screen to look at do?
There are a number of different generations, and the way they were used
generally depended on what the computer in question had for I/O capabilities.
In the very earliest machines, the computations tended to be mathematical
modeling; things that needed a lot of computing, but had very modest I/O
requirements. The classic example was the hydrogen bomb calculations
performed on ENIAC (which was originally built to do ballistics
computations), but other similar ones included structural modeling, etc.
That class of application continued (and does so, to this day), but over
time, more and more things got done using computers, as their capabilities
(online storage, I/O, etc) grew. In general, the new applications were added
to the existing ones, but did not supplant the earlier ones.
Starting with a computer in England called LEO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEO_(computer)
they were also applied to business applications (inventory, payroll, billing,
etc), which typically did more modest computations, but more I/O, which
required better I/O capability (cards, tapes, printers, etc).
With the advent of timesharing in the early 1960's, it became common to add
individual character-output terminals (initially printing, moving mostly to
video terminals circa the mid-70's), and with the ability of users to
interact with applications running on a computer, applications broadened even
further; online text preparation was one common one.
The final phase came with the introduction of bit-mapped video terminals,
which allowed the interactive users to use graphics, and images; the very
earliest such systems were on time-sharing mainframes, but with the growth of
personal computers, that technology migrated there (note that the very
earlist PC's had only character-output terminals, mimicing their main-frame
big brothers of the time).
Noel
3289
days inactive
3295
days old
21 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
elson＠pico-systems.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
ggs＠shiresoft.com -
isking＠uw.edu -
jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
rodsmallwood52＠btinternet.com -
spacewar＠gmail.com -
tulsamike3434＠gmail.com -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com