On Jun 11, 2009, at 1:10 AM, Zane H. Healy wrote: That strikes me as very odd. Why on earth would they do this? -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

On Jun 11, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Kirn Gill <segin2005 at gmail.com> wrote: Yeah, what a horrible world we live in -- affordable, powerful hardware capable of running a wide variety of free, powerful, and useful operating systems and software and emulating every vintage system under the sun. A world -wide-network making the collecting and maintainance of our hobby projects possible. Digital watches. Yeah, we live in the worst of all possible worlds. Christ. You guys are too cynical for me... - josh

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Ethan Dicks<ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote: Are you claiming that watch is not digital and you are wearing it? Or that it is the only True Digital Watch and you're *not* wearing it? John the confused -- "I've tried programming Ruby on Rails, following TechCrunch in my RSS reader, and drinking absinthe. It doesn't work. I'm going back to C, Hunter S. Thompson, and cheap whiskey." -- Ted Dziuba

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Eric Smith<eric at brouhaha.com> wrote: Digital watch? I see no digits. -ethan

As Vonada said 'Digital circuits are made from analog parts'. And as Professor Wilkes once told me 'A digital circuit is like a tame animal. An analogue circuit is a wild aninmal. Every so often the digital circuit goes back to the wild and behaves linearly'. :-) -tony

Ethan Dicks wrote: Looked to me like there were plenty of them; far more than on a typical digital watch. Eric

Josh Dersch wrote: The world we live in today *is* great. But it wouldn't be great without all the invisible *large* **powerful** machines running off in the background somewhere doing a lot of heavy lifting. It's the people who predicted everything would be obsolete except the PC were *wrong*. Peace... Sridhar

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Josh Dersch wrote: "free, powerful and useful" does not describe any viable consumer OS at the moment. At point, the only consumer OSes really worth considering (more than 7.5% market share) are Windows and Mac OS X. If you are trying to apply "free, powerful and useful" to Windows, you need your head examined. Mac OS X... is an abomination. A design (look and feel) that sucks using a interface toolkit (Cocoa) that sucks written in a language (Objective-C) that sucks. And sadly, it seems no matter what you do, it can' t get any better, because all OSes suck, some just suck less than others.

2009/6/12 Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com>: The almost-unheard-of Japanese iTRON OS runs on hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of consumer electronics devices that most people never realise /have/ an OS on them. It may be the most widespread OS in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRON_Project -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419 AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508

Kirn Gill wrote: Yeah, and you know what the worst thing is? Everyone is forced to run only viable consumer OSes. It's illegal to download and run Linux, or BSD, or even a hobbyist license of OpenVMS. (And woe to thee who even whispers "Amiga Workbench".) Nope, ever since the dark days in '98 when Microsoft and Apple joined forces to lobby congress for the "Give Teenage Computer Nerds Something to Whine About on the Internet" bill if you're caught running an "invalid" OS it's off to the crowbar motel for you! They've got Stallman, and I hear Torvalds is on the lam! And there are no free toolchains for building your own OS, should you want to improve on the status quo! Not free, no. Powerful and useful, yes. I offer you some friendly advice: Openly insulting people is probably not a great way to introduce yourself to a mailing list. I asked you before, I'll ask you again -- what _specific_ complaints do you have about Objective-C or Cocoa? What experience do you have with either, and what is your basis for comparison? So do you have anything meaningful or insightful to say on this list, or are you merely trying to impress us with the way you generically hate everything? Josh

2009/6/12 Kirn Gill <segin2005 at gmail.com>: Well, as the man said, two out of three ain't bad. It's powerful and it's useful. And in practice, for most people, it *is* free, because it comes with the computer. I am not a programmer, so I have no experience of OS X's development tools. I've been using it since the first version, though, and I think it's the least-sucky OS in the world today. In my opinion, it looks beautiful - the most elegant, stylish and attractive GUI there has ever been, thus far, and in use, it's the most polished and friendly OS there has ever been. Its only serious rival in simplicity and ease of use was its own predecessor, classic MacOS. These are pretty widely-held opinions, too, as far as I can tell, from Walt Mossberg on down. As for the dev tools - well, NeXT's Interface Builder was world-class (it was, of course, the platform upon which the WorldWideWeb was built - and it still is pretty damned good. It's not the technical sophistication of OpenStep that sold it to Apple - BeOS was smaller, faster, sleeker, vastly more efficient and a lot cheaper. It was the dev tools, because without developers, it doesn't matter *how* cool your OS is. To win users, you need apps - good ones and lots of them. And the Mac's got that. It has some world-leading apps, quite aside So, I'd say, fine, you're entitled to your opinions. Some people don't like the Mac and OS X. Most of them don't like it because they've never tried it and they're scared of the new and unfamiliar. This is a very common syndrome and it applies from clothes to vehicles. I'm a goth, myself, or at least used to be in my younger days, and only 2yr ago, a goth girl was beaten to death by a gang here in England just for looking and dressing differently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Lancaster Myself -- being a looming 6'2" male with a less than sunny disposition -- nobody ever gave me any trouble, but then, in another realm, I do. I ride a recumbent bicycle. And just for riding a weird-looking bicycle, I've been stoned, kicked, threatened and on one occassion lashed at with a knife as I rode past. People really don't like the weird. They don't like those who do not conform. So, lots of PC users pour venom and spite on the Mac and Mac users, because they're different, and they go on about how much better it is. But those who actually /try/ it tend to like it, and Apple is winning millions of converts over to OS X, especially now that it's on Intel and you can run Windows in a VM and keep your old Windows apps if you need them. So, be careful with confidently pronouncing opinions as universal truths. It's important to know the distinction between your personal preferences and facts. And beware of proclaiming preferences that may make you seem to be a bigot, because nobody likes bigotry. Well, that's true. But some do suck less than others. And when you are comparing such large and complicated things as 21st-century OSs, well, you can find areas, even just among the big 3 - Linux, Mac OS X and Windows - where each sucks in one area but excels in another. There are things that Windows is good at that OS X is bad at; there are things that Linux does well that the others do badly; there are things that all more or less equally on, good or bad. None of them is clearly and universally better than the others. -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419 AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508

2009/6/12 John Floren <slawmaster at gmail.com>: Hey, speak for yourself! :?) I use the keystrokes myself and find Spaces considerably more efficient than the virtual-desktop system in GNOME, for instance. They certainly were the latter. In this instance, actually, I was on a cycle path along Cable Street in East London, and as it was a one-way street at that point, I had no choice but to use the cycle path. And, unfortunately, pedestrians tend to ignore cycle paths and blithely walk along them. But they had to run at me with the knife, as it happens. -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419 AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508

Josh Dersch wrote: I've got to agree. Never before have people been able to indulge their whims for "old school" computing as well as we can. Yes, CP/M is dead as an O/S. I can still run my CP/M programs on my laptop, and run them hundreds of times faster, with what amounts to infinite storage. I can set up a computer to act like the first computer I used, an HP2000B in TimeShare BASIC. And THAT runs much faster, with outrageously huge drives. I can run a PDP-11 computer on Linux, or even MUMPS -- assuming I had the proper disc image, which I don't. (Anybody?) Anyway, with one reasonably priced computer I can be using most any computer I've ever run, only on steroids. Heck, I'm happy about it. And then, when I get tired of that, I can run modern software, or even Windows, on the same hardware, and turn it into a tiny little machine if I want. Increased processor power, memory, and storage, combined with truly excellent emulators, have made the world a virtual paradise for classic computing. Celebrate, folks! Warren

On Jun 12, 2009, at 2:33 AM, Warren Wolfe wrote: Well, for "classic OSs". Some of us are actually interested in the hardware. ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

Warren Wolfe wrote: Simulation also drives the interest in searching for old software. Bob Supnik's efforts on finding 18 bit DEC software is an example. There is an incentive for people trying to chase down stuff in retired field engineer's garages if they can actually do something with what they find, even though there is no hardware any more. This is the real reason that I gave up on collecting hardware. You just get in wars with other collectors about who is going to end up with the artifact, while the hunt for old software and documentation turns out to be as difficult and has the advantage of having the possibility of being made generally available to everyone with an interest in the history of computing all over the world.

Dave McGuire wrote: True enough. They certainly don't WEIGH as much, for instance... <Grin> 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 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, 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 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 ongoing expenses, and declining supplies of disk drives which work. Face it, storage media has a limited lifespan, and eventually every single bit of classic media will fail. So, long story short, while I certainly share the fun inherent in the hardware, it simply MUST be a hobby that dies out, unless one is a museum curator. Software classic computing could be a steadily growing field, only needing interest from new people to expand. Do I need to enumerate the benefits? Shipping a copy of your disk pack to someone in an e-mail, instead of calling Craters and Freighters, is a huge advantage, in both time and money. There are lots of similar benefits. I'm just lucky I am *more* interested in the process of running the software as I used to do, rather than in climbing into the machines. I cannot afford much of the latter, in time, money, or space. Warren

Tony Duell wrote: And that's fine for you, Tony. I admit I share your enthusiasm. However, I *ALSO* enjoy RUNNING the computers, and using the software written long ago, too. Indeed. Personally, I've always been fond of the analog computers used to aim guns on battleships. Very fine control, huge output. Those gun barrels are not at all light. When all is said and done, they can loft a shell that weighs as much as a Buick 30 miles, and hit within 30 feet of the target. Of course -- each to his own. I have always been odd in this; my whole career, I have been back and forth between hardware and software, and truly love both. Yes, yes, I would love to own real computers. Realistically speaking, though, I would need living space very many times what I have. Also, I live in the spot on Earth with just about the highest electricity rates of anywhere that has regular service. I seriously shudder to think what it would cost to run some of these monsters from the past. No, it's not selfish, it's realistic. Since nobody is adding to the pool of classic hardware, it can only get smaller over time. And, sure, I would encourage others to take up the hobby. On the other hand, such activities DO make it harder for everyone collecting the hardware. Very little hardware collecting fits in my budget of money, time, or space. It's a fact of life. I will not be able to indulge myself as I would like with this hobby. But, encouraging others to explore classic SOFTWARE on emulators takes away nothing from anyone, and in point of fact, will often INCREASE the number of "toys" for everyone. If someone creates a new emulator, or scrounges around and finds a boot tape for an O/S that had gone "missing," EVERYONE can have a copy of it, generally for free. With this branch of the hobby, I have the money and space to take it as far as I want. I like that. I was first exposed to computers in high school, and found that the TimeShare BASIC was interesting, but limited. I went hacking around and found many other computers to use, so, having a computer contact consist of a serial connection only is pretty much what the computer experience WAS for me. Emulation also allows, since the hardware is virtual, a "machine" to be beefed up almost beyond recognition. So limitations imposed upon one by the budget of those purchasing the hardware simply do not apply. For example, I first used an HP 2000B TimeShare BASIC computer. While I can't get exactly that in emulation, I can get an emulator running Access -- which was years in the future when I was introduced, but along the same HP path. That's cool... Like what I used, only bigger and better, with some cool new features. I'm just trying to get copies of the old software I wrote for that system.... I thought I was up on Brit tech-speak, but "grants" is one I don't know. What are "grants?" True enough, Tony, but with the right emulator, I CAN single step, and examine register contents, and so on. And I don't HAVE to repair the hardware to keep it going. I used to maintain a mailing list on a program I wrote in CBASIC under CP/M on an IMSAI 8080. The guy who collected the changes to the list came by one month a bit early, and I wasn't ready for him. "Updates?" I asked, "Hang on, I'll go get my soldering iron." Repairing memory (2102s) was a daily matter back then, and interfered with the use of the machine. Heck, I wrote a memory test routine which ran when console status was checked - not because it was cool, but because I NEEDED it. Yeah, like emulators. <Grin> Hey, each to their own. I don't have the resources to do much with my classic hardware hobby, but I can take my classic software hobby to the limit. That's lots better than nothing. I'm glad you get to indulge, too. And, don't think I wouldn't have a warehouse full of old computers if I could pull it off somehow... and all sorts of electronics. My personal quirk on hardware is that I like to collect things that were, at one time, the very pinnacle of technology... Like, for example, a Processor Technology Sol computer, for old personal computers. That's what gives me the biggest thrills. Warren

On Jun 15, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Tony Duell wrote: I'm right there with you. I use emulators all the time, but they are not the end-all/be-all of classic computing. I think a lot of people don't realize that there is value (historic value, fun, personal satisfaction, etc) in the hardware as well. For me, and probably you as well, it's more about the hardware than anything else. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

On Jun 15, 2009, at 5:11 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: VERY few, from what I've seen! Someone recently challenged me to design a USB interface for an IBM 3420. If I ever actually find one, I will attempt it. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

On Jun 15, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Eric Smith wrote: I would love to do that. Perhaps I will eventually. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

Certainly for me. As I've said many times I am _not_ primarily interested in computers or programming. I am interested in electronics (and mechancial engineering). Classic computers are of interest to me becuase they are interesting complicated-but-still-understandable electronic systems, often with some interesting mechanical bits (disk drives, printers, etc). -tony

I can't stand it. Like that SD2IEC thing, that's the kind of heresy that will destroy Commodores forever. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- There are few problems that the liberal usage of high explosives can't cure. and, um, ;-)

On Jun 17, 2009, at 12:24 AM, Jim Brain wrote: Are you talking about things like interfaces for modern disk drives and such? -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

On Jun 17, 2009, at 10:01 AM, Jim Brain wrote: Well...my opinion is that it's great. I am a purist in some ways, but not in others. I think that vintage systems shouldn't be modified (at least not heavily so) to accept these types of things, but if they would make a vintage machine usable (or "more usable"), then so much the better. Anything that gets a machine powered up and doing something is a good thing, IMO. Some things like this, like Chuck Dickman's brilliant RX drive emulator and the several excellent TU58 emulators that are out there, make it FAR easier to bring up vintage systems and get them running. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Tony Duell wrote: While I agree with you here, I have to admit that, if my PDP-11/70 had switching power supplies, I'd probably run it a lot more often. I'd *never* make it an irreversible modification, though. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

Dave McGuire wrote: Unless you've already replaced them with something else, your PDP-11/70 *DOES* have switching power supplies! Eric

Dave wrote: I wrote: Dave wrote: Yes, it's a switcher. The switching transistor has a 30A rating because the rated output of the supply is 25A. The theory of operation is covered in section 4.4.6.2 of the maintenance manual, EK-11070-MM-002 (May 1979), page 4-59 et seq., and a sample switching waveform is given in figure 4-39 on page 4-61. For the KL10, I'd like to upgrade to switchers but I don't want to replace the entire ECL power supply as is done in the Compuserve mode. I'd rather keep the front end, which consists of the H760A raw supply (basically just a three-phase transformer and rectifier), and the capacitor box (13 ea. 0.3F 15V electrolytics), and replace just the individual -5.2V 35A and -2.0V 35A regulator modules in the H761 regulator assembly, since those modules can be easily removed and reinstalled. I've got a design for replacement regulators using the LTC3731, and it looks good in simulation, but I haven't yet built any. I wasn't quite sure how to use the LTC3731 as a negative buck regulator, but one of the apps engineers at Linear Technology showed me how to do it. Eric

On Jun 18, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Tony Duell wrote: Yes, Eric educated me. I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I was mistaken here. I have repaired scads of these but have never had to dig so deeply as to understand the whole circuit. When I see an LM723 with a big fat series pass transistor wrapped around it, I think "linear regulator". I've replaced a few electrolytic capacitors and a few of the transistors, usually the same ones. Yup. I've built a few power supplies with LM723s with external pass transistors, but always linear, not switchers. I know from the datasheets that it is possible but I've never done it. I have some pretty old NS databooks; I will check. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

blstuart at bellsouth.net wrote: The earliest example I have at hand for the 723 is the manufacturer's schematic for the Wang 520 calculator. The power supply page with two 723's on it (used just in linear mode), is dated early 1971. Perhaps the earlier handbook was

blstuart at bellsouth.net wrote: Funny that it wouldn't even be mentioned, perhaps the chip was old enough by that time that it got left out of a current-techniques handbook (as opposed to a databook) in favor of newer stuff.

Brent Hilpert wrote: Come to think of it, the 723 probably originated with Fairchild, as Fairchild's linear stuff were 700-series numbers (702,709,710,741,...). National may well have been a 2nd-source for it.

Could be. It's one of the thinnest of the National books I have, and it was distributed through Radio Shack. So it might well be a "greatest hits" compilation. It does include the [123]09, [123]17, 120, [123]23, [123]25, [123]26, [123]27, [123]40, 341, 342, [123]45, 78XX, 78LXX, 79XX. BLS

Dave McGuire wrote: One datapoint: Motorola Linear 1976, MC1723 datasheet shows a switching config. National Application Notes AN1(1967), AN8(1968) and AN2(1969) show the LM100 regulator IC in switching configs. The LM100 looks like the predecessor to the 723, a reference and error amp in one package. It disappears from later databooks, presumably obsoleted by the 723.

All of the early datasheets " TALK " about the 723 being used as a switcher. TI, Fairchild, and Intersil actually have a switching circuit. Philips, Signetics and SGS Thomson do not have a switching circuit on the datasheet. SGS Thomson has an internal schematic of the 723. Best regards, Steven

This may be something only someone on this list might be after. http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/sys/1227134894.html

On Jun 18, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Tony Duell wrote: Yes...Huge transformer, big bridge rectifiers, LM723, big series pass transistors...that says "linear" to me. :) I've never gotten deeply enough into the circuit I guess. I've been a DEChead all my life, but still I learn something new from you guys every day!! -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

Jim Brain wrote: I don't see why new users can't enjoy the same original hardware as those of use who grew up on this. I disagree with using newer technologies up to a certain point. Whether you want to restore some files with a modern disk drive because you might be without enough equipment or build a new cpu design by mixing in modern components. I think you get to experience the thoughts and nuances when using original parts in a computer design created 30/40 yrs ago - as in, how to test,program,debug,etc the original hardware. What's the point in restoring vintage equipment of you like to 'circumvent' the original design by using something which didn't exist for that particular era. As in the case of using a replacement modern drive to sustain an existing system, is reasonable, but it's more fun to find something original afterwards. It might be expensive for some to buy 8" floppy drives now, but you can still get 5-1/4" floppy drives inexpensively. The alternative drive systems using faster drives and GB of storage , I think, just loses appeal with the aspect of restoring vintage hardware - I think it shows you have less patience for old hardware. It's so easy to mix in modern components in an IC design - heaven forbid if people want to gut their transistors machines and install a cards replaced with 7474 dual FF chips. Using modern technology is the easy way out - try learning how it was done then. I do think some people like to wonder at work involved with the vintage technology still. =Dan [ = http://www2.applegate.org/~ragooman/ ]

bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca wrote: It maybe because I'm mostly a hardware grunt/gearhead. See, I think a good example of experiencing vintage hardware design is using some of the first PAL's from MMI that came out near the end of the 70's. The programmers that we had weren't that smart as they are today - no synthesis, fitters, or floorplanners then. After you designed the logic, you had to chart the fuses that you had to pop on a diagram resembling the component. All there was on the screen of the programmer was the same logic diagram and you individually configure the fuses you needed to pop, and then your PAL was programmed. Now try and see if that will test your patience after a dozen PALs :) I would like to find one of those programmers someday. =Dan [ = http://www2.applegate.org/~ragooman/ ]

Jim Brain wrote: And to drive the point home, even back in the day, almost everyone wanted to use a fast loader whenever possible as it accelerated the bandwidth of the 1541 several times. Infact the GEOS operating system for the C64 had a built in fast loader, and in the C128, when hooked up to a 1571, it would use the faster method that the fast loaders used. So yes, you might want to wait 5 minutes to load Jungle Hunt or Spy Hunter, or something else once or twice to see what it was like, but after that, you'll quickly give up on repeating that experience. :-)

Dan Roganti wrote: You still OK if we move to 802.11b/g, which I don't think was around in the 80's? Well, holler if you need parts. I just picked up 20 of them this past weekend. I could build a small kids house using the ones I own as bricks. Jim

Dan Roganti wrote: Access is one reason. As in lack of. If you can't find a working machine, or restore a broken one to working state, either because they're difficult to find, expensive, you might not have room or power enough to run one, etc. Simple. Those of us who use modern machines like to upgrade them. Something that is no longer made, no longer supported is hard to upgrade. So that builds a new market for those that wish to provide upgrades for those that wish to use them. It's anachronistic, sure, but go take a look at the Newton Planet mailing list. Yes, there are *MANY* who still use Newtons to this day and have upgraded to them in various ways. There are still many Apple ][ and Commodore fans. Upgrades such as ethernet cards and new storage devices are very welcomed in those circles. There you go. Now take the next logical step - wouldn't it be nice to have some sort of networking? Ok, let's assume you've said yes, maybe you didn't, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume so. What about wireless networking? Maybe you don't want to run wires all over the house. Some of these older machines had serial ports for RS232 or RS422. Well those are rare, so maybe you have to use USB to Serial cables. Okay, what about going the other way, what if you built a serial port for the older machine? What could you do then? What if the keyboard breaks, or you have a machine without one? Would you object to building an interface to a modern keyboard? Of course having the original keyboard, and one that actually works is the desired thing, but say they're unobtainium. Rather than have a machine that you can't do much with, isn't it better to have an interface available? Sure it's not the same, but is it better than doing without? Some would say no, my personal feeling is go for it until you find an original keyboard and manage to restore it. Yup. Now it doesn't mean that the machine is now an accurate description of one of that era. It's been modified and adapted. That's not necessarily a bad thing, for some it absolutely is. I don't mind either way, but that doesn't mean I'd apply destructive/irreversible changes to my classic machines. But this last point is just my own personal preference and doesn't reflect everyone's. (There are those that have re-purposed classic computer cases as fishtanks or lamps, or to house newer computers for example.) Now let's take it further out, say you have a very old machine with rare parts that you just couldn't repair or replace. And you wanted to play around with that machine's software for many hours and , in doing so, you might risk causing damage to the mechanical components (say floppy drive or hard drive, and you had no spares). Now let's also add: say there was an accurate emulator for it, would you fire up the original hardware, or fire up the emulator? Sure you might fire up the actual hardware once a year or two, to be sure that it's still working. But would you risk using it for hours and days on end when an emulator was available, knowing you couldn't replace or repair the hardware? What if you didn't own the machine at all and had no chance to obtain one (or they were very expensive, and you aren't rich and couldn't justify spending over $5000), and didn't know anyone who had one that would be willing to let you play with, but you wanted to know more about it and experience it, would you object to using an emulator? Or would just save yourself that experience until some undetermined amount of time later to play with one? Even though the chances of finding one would get smaller and smaller over time?

On 18 Jun 2009 at 11:56, blstuart at bellsouth.net wrote: For the really classic machines, the issue may be one of "how do we get this thing to operate at all?" versus "well, it's a nice museum piece--too bad it won't ever work again". Replacing an antique memory device (Williams tube, thin-film, delay line or even core) with modern memory may be the limit of what can be done at reasonable expense. If it gets the system running, one can always leave the old device in place for show. I think bitsavers' archiving tdocumentation is probably more, or at least as important as preserving the actual iron. I've learned more about some old machines by perusing the archives than I ever would have playing with the real thing. One aspect that the documentation can convey that the hardware doesn't is "why we did it this way". i.e. the thought process behind the implementation--and to me, that's far more important. Playing with old hardware without documentation is sometimes like looking at object code without source. It's a grand puzzle and you can figure out the logic, but you lose the sense of the human behind the design. A well-commented piece of source code is worth its weight in gold for getting the big picture and the mindset of the programmer. The same goes for hardware technical manuals. --Chuck

blstuart at bellsouth.net wrote: The Antikythera mechanism would seem a pertinent example of that. If people had attempted to dismantle it back when it was discovered, rather than leaving it alone, I think it unlikely we would have learned what we have since, through the modern nuclear-imaging techniques that have been applied to it.

"bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca" wrote: Entropy. Corrosion is not a two-way process.

"bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca" wrote: Whatever that means. Corrosion involves a dispersal of atoms, and physical deformation, i.e. loss of information. You don't just reverse the process and get back what you had. The mechanism was pretty far gone in portions, reverse electrolysis would be far cruder than the imaging.

Brent Hilpert wrote: That is what I was looking for. "reverse electrolysis". I was counting on diffrent bronzes giving breaks in the corrosion types so that reverse electrolysis would give a better restoration of the original. Ben.

Gordon JC Pearce wrote: My gripe with British Computers of that era, No floppy drive of any kind. Lets keep on topic here. :) Emulators are needed and useful, but work best for real hardware is my view. CPLD and FPGA hardware could in my view point bring back old logic needed for older machines as repair of a old PCB or NEW design of a old machine. The problem is at least with PDP-11's and PDP-10's people seem demanding in that they want the fastest or biggest design made. I am talking here, a good 10 years before that for designs to be new built or repaired since this not a commercial hobby. Ben.

Tony Duell wrote: It's just a matter of degree. I suspect there were very many more valve radios produced than classic computers, probably a couple orders of magnitude. However, even those will be, for all practical purposes, gone in time. While it won't have any effect on you or me, run the clock ahead a hundred years... and very little of either will remain. True... but, even WAY old classic computers are less than 50 years old. I mean, is there even someone out there with an IBM 360? You've got to look at the numbers... When the IBM PC was first released, fewer than 5% of homes in the U.S. had computers. The number went over 50% in 2000, and has not looked back. Do the math. 10 times as many people have computers now, as did then. If everybody wanted a classic computer, even a personal classic, there aren't enough to go around. More than half of current households have a PC. What percentage have o'scopes? Quite small, I'm sure. The chances of a person being able to run an emulator are significantly better than their chances of being able to work on old hardware and fix it. And, for those who do not have the requisites, what is the cost? What's the cost of an old PC machine? I see them all the time for less than $100. What's the cost of an electronics shop? I spent thousands, and was still lacking many items. It's clearly true that not EVERYBODY has any of the items you list. However, most people have access to most of them, and the percentages keep rising. I think you're assuming you need a new machine to run an emulator.... Not true! A five-year-old PC is quite cheap. Not useful in the "speed demon" sense, and not yet "classic," they sit at the nadir of their value. Fish THERE for cost effectiveness. And that's fine, Tony. I agree, and I share your affinity for this. But I don't have the resources to indulge my hobbyist desires in this field. I've recently been rudely uprooted, and lost my entire electronics shop. Oh. Okay. Thanks. I've not heard it expressed that way. Yes, it's possible. No, I've not seen it. Hey, there might be something you'd enjoy doing in software.... <Grin> Oh, no, that doesn't sound crazy. I share your interest. I just don't always want to HAVE TO solve problems before I can accomplish something. My current set-up is much more reliable than the IMSAI hardware, mostly because of the 2102 memory. Long ago, I got rid of that, and replaced it with 6116-based memory, and life got much easier in the CP/M world. All I'm saying is that it is much easier to expand the hobby of the software side of classic computing. Also, about half the people don't have to spend ANYTHING to start it. Warren

Dave McGuire wrote: And, honestly, I understand. I will fix hardware for the fun of it myself. But, I'm not so happy if I want to program some 8080 assembly language on, say, my Kaypro, and I can't because the drive has gone down. Then, the problem is a roadblock, not a puzzle. Warren

As a matter of fact, this is one of the things that makes VHDL so useful in FPGA-based designs: You have the ability to simulate the entire object down to the clock cycle level, if you think you need to. (The same may be true for Verilog, but we were a VHDL shop.) And a lot of the tools were available for free, so match the typical hobbyist's budget. Rich Alderson Vintage Computing Server Engineer Vulcan, Inc. 505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 mailto:RichA at vulcan.com (206) 342-2239 (206) 465-2916 cell http://www.pdpplanet.org/

Tony Duell wrote: Good points. Anything I'd say would be sheer speculation, so I'll keep quiet on the subject... Oh, I'd like to. And, in point of fact, I did collect quite a few. I was most interested in personal computers, and had an extensive collection of CP/M machines (10 or 12), maybe 8 Macs of various vintage, two or three C64 systems, 4 C-128s, half a dozen Apple IIs, of differing vintage, 2 or three Atari systems, depending on how you divided up the peripherals, a dozen or so Tandy 100s, 5 or 6 XT clones, a pretty complete set of Casio handhelds, a Juno, an IBM AT, an HP 9830, an HP-125, an HP-150, and, for a while, an HP-2100 series minicomputer. Okay, hardly an epic collection, but it kept MY interest, hardware verification and repair included. I also had a shop with the standard array of 'scopes, signal generators, EPROM burners, DVMs, etc. I also wanted an HP-64000 logic analyzer, but never found one. Now, sadly, I have my IMSAI 8080, a couple Kaypro IIs, my workhorse Kaypro 10, an Osborne 1, a Timex Sinclair, maybe 2 Tandy 100s, and a couple of Tandy Color Computers. (And my Windows XP & Linux laptop, and my Linux box, Darth.) My entire shop is gone. So, I feel naked. <Grin> If I were to get into it again, it would be a major expense to get back to where I started, unless my timing is exquisite and I can provide a home for an ongoing collection being dispersed by the current collector. Okay, Tony, be fair. 'Scopes and other equipment are no more free than PCs are. More people are likely to have the PC, however, making taking up emulator jockeying a significantly cheaper proposition for most people. Agreed. I was starting work on the microcode myself (HP-2100 series) when something clogged the ventilator.. Understood. Sounds like you'd be a candidate for an older PC running Linux.... Probably true. PCs have a nasty tendency to be frightfully expensive when new, and lose value immediately, and rapidly, after purchase. My old Tekronix scopes all seemed to get more valuable each year. That's no way to treat vintage gear! HA! Well, consider an older PC as an investment, like a test instrument. Again, each to his own. Yes. Been there, done that. Like you, my favorite machines are the older HP gear. I love fine engineering, and it was easier to find in HP than in any other manufacturer I've known. Warren

(Subject was: Re: Hardware Hobbyists vs. Emulator Jockeys (was: Re: UNIX V7)) Tony Duell wrote: Additionally, a friend of mine and I were ever-so-close to buying one of them and starting a programming business, right after we got out of high school. Since we were both "kids," with no college education, the bank, in the end, didn't go for us as being the wizards we actually were. The business would have worked: we had clients lined up, and everything. Yes, I noticed that at the time. This was before microprocessors. We were going to go with the replacement guarantee... I fell in love with a woman living on the Big Island of Hawaii. That's pretty close to a third world country. Got married. We both wanted to be together as quickly as possible, so as soon as I could quit my job, get packed, and move, I did. That left me nearly without money. It also left most of my classic computers, and all of my test equipment, in a storage unit back on the mainland, to be shipped after I got some money together. When I showed up here, I found that my new wife's idea of marriage was that she kept everything of mine, and if I needed some of it, I could ask her politely for the key. If I had been good, and had done all I was told, perhaps I would be allowed access to my things. We lived on a street about 4 miles down a steep hill. I was not allowed access to a vehicle. Long story short, I was essentially her prisoner. I eventually broke out, and managed to save all my things which had been shipped over. I thought my escape was brilliant. But, that left me broke, homeless, and in debt. I started working, but was only making just a bit more than I needed to survive, and I lost my mainland storage unit, which included, as I said, the bulk of my collection, and my entire shop. SOMEBODY got a good deal. Or, maybe not. The storage place got at least a thousand dollars selling it, because they quit bugging me about the balance due... Still pisses me off. From this point, for the foreseeable future, MY hobbies have to be pretty cheap, or involve stuff I already have. It wasn't apparent from your messages that they originated on a Linux PC, just SOME system without spell-checking. <Grin> I agree on the HP-120, but the HP-125 actually is very nice. One of my favorites, AaMoF. I was speaking of the satisfaction of using the machines, not the availability. I only lost one 9830 in "the disaster," and it was a serious wreck. It was in SUCH bad shape that it only cost me $10. I was getting it in shape when I moved. Warren

That's not a lot of help _now_ (and nor is board-swapping, whatever your moral views on doing it. If you can't get known-good working boardsm you can't swap them). In fact HP put a test connector inside on the CPU control (microcode) PCB. Amongst other things it carries the 8 bit microcode address. Looking at that -- even just seeing if it executes certain microinstructions -- is a great help in debugging a faulty machine. Well, provided you understnad the processor and have the microcode listings it is :-) Oh I see.... :-( I, alas, have the same problem for rather different reasons (no ladies involved...). Fortunatley when I had spare money, I bought good tools and test gear, and I've got a numnber of machiens around that need reapiring, so I'ev got plenty to keep me busy. What's the difference? I am serious. Apart from the keyboard interface, they're pretty much the same machine, just differently laid out. Even the ROMs are the same between the HP120 and one version of the HP125. The keyboard interface is physically very diffeernt, but the keyboards are logically fairly similar, to the extend you can use an HP125 keyboard on an HP120 with a 3-chip circuit (all 4000-series CMOS parts), although the reverse is a lot harder. OK, there's no official way to have an internal printer in a 120, but the interface is there, and althohgh I've not tried it, it should work. One day I'll borrow bits fro man HP150 and see. When I said I didn't like the design of the HP120, I didn't mean the 'looks ' of the machine. I meant the electronic design -- a separate terminal processor communicating with the application processor through a little 'mailbox' and a very strange video circuit. -tony

I wonder why you like the HP125 and not the HP120, given that they're almost the same machine electronically. All the points you make apply to the 120 as well. Sure, but most HP machines have HPIB :-). The HP120 doesn't properly support the HPIB port in the BIOS (IIRC there's no BIOS function to read directly. Not a big problem, but if you get it into the wrong state you may find you can no longer talk to the disk drives. For talking to instruments, I prefer to use an HP9000/200 machine with a second HPIB port (HP98624). Firstly there's much better standard software support for the HPIB interface, and secondly, if one of the instruments 'hangs the bus' (likely in my case as I might well be repairing said instrument), I can still talk to the disks. It's not so much that, but rather the actual design of the video circuit. It uses that National 8350 chip (actually a differently mask-programmed one for a different screen format). That's a strange chip, it interrupts the Z80 at the start of each character line, and fills an 80 byte shift register with characters. And then there's the attributesm which are set on a character line basis. Basically, every character is either normal or enhanced (decided by bit 7 of the chracter code). You can only have one type of enhancement in a given line. So you could have normal and underlined characters in the same line, but you can't have normal, inverse, and underlined characters all in the same line. Another problem is that AFAIK there's no official way for a CP/M program to set the parameters of the serial ports (not even the 'printer' port). The serial chips are on the terminal processor bus, there's no direct way for the application processor to talk to them. There's an undocumented way to run code on the terminal processor (in that at least one HP application does that), but I can't find out how to do it. Sure, but I don't think the HP120 falls into that category. I'd much rather have an HP9000/200.... -tony

I am sure yuo realise why I prefer the series 200 to the series 300... Perhaps I am being unkind -- the only 9000/300 machine I'ev been inside is the model 340, and it seemed to be stuffed with unrecognisable PGA-packaged ICs. At least the series 200s are mostly standard parts with the odd PAL, ROM and microcontroller thrown in. It is an interesting styling and odd to work on -- release a quarter-turn fastener, slide the casing slightly forwards on the stand, then lift it up on a stay. You can then release some Nylatch clips and lower the processor board to work on that, The HP120, BTW (and the oriignal HP150, which has much the same physical layout) is odd... You can remvoe the top casing with 2 quarter-turn fasteners, but that jsut gets you to the PSU and monitor PCBs. To get to the logic boards, you have to unclip the battery pack, then remove the jackposts on all the connectors, and then remove 5 screws and the rear panel of the card cage. -tony

Right... As I said, I've only been inside the 9000/340 (I have a number of those that I was given, all with high-res video boards, and IIRC, 16M RAM.). Somewhere I have an interface board for an external video box, the different back panel that goes with that, and a little cardcage you can fit to that backpanel that has a DIO slot). Custom LSI, or things I might have heard of? It's not the PGA package I oject to per se, rather it's the fact I can't get data or replacements for some of the ICs. I can believe it :-). Actually the 12.5MHz 68010 in the 9836CU and 9817 feels noticeably faster than the normal 8MHz 68000. I assume it's just due to the 1.5* clock speed. As if I would :-) Right. Yes, I ahev a 2623 terminal (same case) somewhere -- I borrowed the keyboard from it as a possible keyboard for the HP120 (I described that work a couple of months back). I must extract the terminal iteself sometime and have a serious look at the insides. -tony

The interface board (that fits in place of the graphics board) may well be. Somwehre I have an HP box, the same size as a 9000/340, which appears to be some kind of grapghics processor (there's an i860 on one of the boards and lots of ASICs IIRC). That came with an HP9000/400 series machine, but it may well (a) not have gone with that one and (b) might work on the 9000/340 too. The DIO slot seems normal. There was a 98625 (high speed HPIB using the Medusa chip) with it. I assume that went in said DIO slot. Oh that doesn't sound too bad. I don't recognise that serial chip off the top of my head, but it might be something standard. For some inexplicable reason, HP used the 8250 in the 9000/200 series. A very odd choice given that it's a 68000 machine... Thanks... Indeed. Well, as everyone knows by now, my primary interest is hardware... -tony

Tony Duell wrote: Yes, that's true. Second ports are always nice. Okay, I'll grant you that was a bit weird. Honestly, though, it was never an issue for me, or the original owner. I don't know how 'official' it was, but I had PORTSET.COM which directly set up the serial port from the CP/M side. Er, it RAN on the CP/M side, and set up the ports. An attorney's office near me had the HP-125. When they upgraded, I got their old system for a song. Nobody I knew was getting rid of an HP9000/200. This was before eBay, and I really didn't have a good way to find specific equipment. One takes what's available. Still and all, I very much enjoyed using it, and it was the first machine I had that would be a reasonable terminal, HPIB controller, AND general purpose computer. Also, they were SLEEK. So, scoff if you want, but I liked it just fine. It probably would have been more difficult than average to repair hardware problems on it, but in about 15 years, I never had one. Warren

On Jun 13, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Warren Wolfe wrote: That all depends on what you run them on. Muahhahaa! B-) (I will run simh on my employer's E10K, just because I can!) Or a preservationist, like many of us here. But I do see, and agree with, your point. Well I dunno...Can something truly be called an advantageous approach when it doesn't accomplish the same goal? You are assuming that the only point of classic computing is software. That just isn't so. It boils down to what one is interested in. Yes, you are lucky that your interests coincide with your lifestyle's ability to support them. I bought a bigger house, three times in a row, because I love PDP-11s. (well, that wasn't the ONLY reason, but it was a big part of each decision) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

On Jun 11, 2009, at 10:07 AM, John Foust wrote: Well, some industries don't really have changing product lines and increasing numbers of employees. I'm told (by someone who knows) that VMS is very widely used in the steel industry for controlling large plants (of the type for which downtime becomes unbelievably expensive), and for handling SMS messages in mobile phone networks, as two examples. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL