24 Apr
2002
24 Apr
'02
2:36 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com]
Knowing this it probably more rhetorical:
I haven't looked at the insides of the COCO2
I've got sitting
here, but I
don't see any place for a FDD or a HDD. Are there serial
Yep, that's a problem. Mine had a Floppy controller that plugged
into the cartridge slot. The tape setup wasn't bad either, for the
time.
ports anywhere that
Yeah, I'm certain there was a serial port, but I can't tell you
about it. It's been a while.
I can use? How much R/W memory does it have? How do
you
R/W memory? It has up to 64k of RAM if that's what you mean. If
it were a CoCo 3, it would have up to 512.
expand it to do
something useful?
It's not bad with _only_ the computer, and a disk setup.
... see what I mean? You have to do so much to the
thing
that RS sells you
that it takes up a whole tabletop just to get to what's in
the PC's box, and
You didn't mention that the PSUs were external on many peripherals
too ;)
if you compare the price of a typical PC Clone
available the
same year the
COCO2 was offered, how do they compare in price, avaialble
software base, etc?
There's lots of software for CoCo, but I don't have numbers.
With the COCO, you're better off starting from a
wirewrap
panel and a bucket
I think that may be an exaggeration. :)
of parts, since the video on the COCO is not "up
to snuff,"
i.e. 80x24
characters-capable. It uses that ridiculous 6847, IIRC, and
Actually, there are applications that do 80x24 in some high-res
video mode, for word processing and the like. I ran at least one
on my CoCo1 with 64k of RAM.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl
Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
24 Apr
24 Apr
3:43 a.m.
See below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Smith" <csmith(a)amdocs.com
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:36 AM
Subject: RE: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
An easy way to spot a product intended for the toy market as opposed to one
intended to be seen as a computer, is that the disk drive interface is
external.
What I meant, of course, is how much memory is in the box as shipped.
The COCO schematics I once saw were pretty much direct copies of the Motorola
application notes for their 6847+"sequential address multiplexer" approach to
a "video terminal." It's been at least a decade, probably more like two,
since I had any interest in the 6847, but IIRC, the only character display
format that the 6847 would support was 16 lines of 32 characters. It was
capable of 256x192 graphics in 4 colors, and (maybe) some slightly higher
resolution in monochrome. It was, compared to other sorts of video display
hardware, a complete toy. There must have been some better way of displaying
characters from the COCO, with as many people as seem to like it, but I've no
idea how.
Did they require some sort of hardware enhancement to do that? Once I get
through with what I'm doing today, I'll get out the screwdriver and have a
look inside the COCO2. I did peek inside to see whether the WD 1772 was
inside, which it wasn't, and that was what I was after when I snagged the
thing.
Computers of the '80's had mass storage.
Video toys did not. That's why I
refer to things that didn't/couldn't have internal mass storage interfaces as
toys and allow that things that did/could have them as computers. Later on,
that was no longer a valid basis for classifying them, since it simply became
cheaper to put the mass storage interface inside the box. In the '80's, toy
vendors wanted you to buy small, at an inflated price, and then buy small
again, also at an inflated price. Computer makers had to compete with one
another, while game/toy vendors didn't have to compete with computer makers.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com]
Knowing this it probably more rhetorical:
I haven't looked at the insides of the COCO2
I've got sitting
here, but I
don't see any place for a FDD or a HDD. Are there serial
Yep, that's a problem. Mine had a Floppy controller that plugged
into the cartridge slot. The tape setup wasn't bad either, for the
time.
ports anywhere that
Yeah, I'm certain there was a serial port, but I can't tell you
about it. It's been a while.
I can use? How much R/W memory does it have?
How do you
R/W memory? It has up to 64k of RAM if that's what you mean. If
it were a CoCo 3, it would have up to 512.
expand it to do
something useful?
It's not bad with _only_ the computer, and a disk setup.
... see what I mean? You have to do so much to
the thing
that RS sells you
that it takes up a whole tabletop just to get to what's in
the PC's box, and
You didn't mention that the PSUs were external on many peripherals
too ;)
if you compare the price of a typical PC Clone
available the
same year the
COCO2 was offered, how do they compare in price, avaialble
software base, etc?
There's lots of software for CoCo, but I don't have numbers.
With the COCO, you're better off starting
from a wirewrap
panel and a bucket
I think that may be an exaggeration. :)
of parts, since the video on the COCO is not
"up to snuff,"
i.e. 80x24 characters-capable. It uses that ridiculous 6847, IIRC, and
Actually, there are applications that do 80x24 in some high-res
video mode, for word processing and the like. I ran at least one
on my CoCo1 with 64k of RAM.
4:34 a.m.
Computers of the '80's had mass storage. Video
toys did not. That's why I
refer to things that didn't/couldn't have internal mass storage interfaces as
toys and allow that things that did/could have them as computers. Later on,
that was no longer a valid basis for classifying them, since it simply became
cheaper to put the mass storage interface inside the box. In the '80's, toy
vendors wanted you to buy small, at an inflated price, and then buy small
again, also at an inflated price. Computer makers had to compete with one
another, while game/toy vendors didn't have to compete with computer makers.
Plenty of people couldn't afford what you consider a computer
and had their first experience with computers using what you deem as
'toys'. I doubt that early user's of the Atari, Commodore, TRS-80 or
Sinclair machines would appreciate that label though. Nor did
everyone have either the ability or desire to write major portions of
the OS to get into the S-100 bus boxes, even if they could afford
them.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
5:11 a.m.
Jeff Hellige wrote:
Plenty of people couldn't afford what you
consider a computer
and had their first experience with computers using what you deem as
'toys'. I doubt that early user's of the Atari, Commodore, TRS-80 or
Sinclair machines would appreciate that label though. Nor did
everyone have either the ability or desire to write major portions of
the OS to get into the S-100 bus boxes, even if they could afford
them.
Also development software was expensive too!
A SD floppy of 85k would permit a OS like Flex or CP/M but not much
more!
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
2 p.m.
It may be well to keep in mind that the Altair was certainly not designed to
be a computer. Only the determination of a fanatic made it into one.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
Jeff Hellige wrote:
Plenty of people couldn't afford what
you consider a computer
and had their first experience with computers using what you deem as
'toys'. I doubt that early user's of the Atari, Commodore, TRS-80 or
Sinclair machines would appreciate that label though. Nor did
everyone have either the ability or desire to write major portions of
the OS to get into the S-100 bus boxes, even if they could afford
them.
Also development software was expensive too!
A SD floppy of 85k would permit a OS like Flex or CP/M but not much
more!
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
25 Apr
25 Apr
8:20 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 360 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020425/bb52309b/at…
10:41 a.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Or a PDP-8 with TTY for that matter. Infact I have a FPGA computer (on
my desk here under a pile of papers with a wopping 32 12 bit words of
memory and a serial port and FPGA cpu. Almost as fast a 8 too. :)
This is bare bones machine but it does have I/O , memory and a CPU. The
486 makes a OK tty emulator and the new 700 MHZ machine is just used
to download the software to the REAL Computer.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
It may be well to keep in mind that the Altair was certainly not designed to
be a computer. Only the determination of a fanatic made it into one.
Then perhaps you could tell us just what it was designed as. And find a
reasonable definition of 'computer' that excludes an 8080 + memory + a
way to get data in/out of memory (the front panel).
-tony
11 a.m.
It was designed as a TOY. It first appeared in an article in a niche magazine
specializing TOYS. Since no software, means for getting it in, means for
getting the results of any processing (remember...computers are for AUTOMATIC
data processing?) Its purpose clearly was to make a little money, which it
probably would have done, irrespective of what others did with it.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
>
> It may be well to keep in mind that the Altair was certainly not designed
to
be a computer.
Only the determination of a fanatic made it into one.
Then perhaps you could tell us just what it was designed as. And find a
reasonable definition of 'computer' that excludes an 8080 + memory + a
way to get data in/out of memory (the front panel).
-tony
11:56 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 985 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020426/7c31b004/at…
26 Apr
26 Apr
2:41 a.m.
You raise a valid point, Tony, but ...
see below, plz,
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
... and you feel it's warranted to spend vast amounts of money, which the
Altair cost, on a machine with no means for putting code/data in or out except
for single-bit LED's and a few switches when there's no other means for
inserting/extracting information? Even Ed Roberts indicated he initially had
no plans to produce additional cards for his Altair, initially. Only after it
was shown there was a demand for them, did folks realize that the ALTAIR PSU
was inadequate for more than what he sold with it.
[Altair]
>
> It was designed as a TOY. It first appeared in an article in a niche
magazine
You clearly believe that 'toy' and 'computer' are mutually exclusive. I
do not.
That was very much a valid distinction in 1980, but because microelectronics
applied to the toy market are as valid and "real" an application asn any
other, it's no longer the case.
specializing TOYS. Since no software, means for
getting it in, means for
IIRC there was a front panel. Surely I am not the only person here to
have entered software using toggle switches....
> getting the results of any processing (remember...computers are for
AUTOMATIC
> data processing?) Its purpose clearly was to
make a little money, which
it
It's purpose (IMHO) was clearly as an educational tool.
Yes, as was the "Speak-n-Spell" which was sold in toy stores everywhere.
Now clearly you don't think you need any form of aids to learning, but
for the rest of us mortals, it's helpful to actually have some real
devices to learn with. In order to learn about programming it helps to
have a computer. Even one with 256 bytes (or whatever) of memory and a
frontpanel only. I'd rather try to understand programming using that than
with no computer at all.
I don't know why you've assumed this defensive posture, Tony. There's
no sin
involved in using microelectronics of any form in toys. Further, educational
toys, e.g. the "Speak-n-Spell" I mentioned before, are a very useful sort of
toy that emphasizes something other than senseless violence or
pseudo-atheletics for a society plagued by too much senseless violence, and
too little physical activity on the part of our youth. Games like that one,
and there once were several, allow youngsters to exercise their minds without
fear of embarassment, which teaches them they can do something about their
perceived shortcomings, among other things.
I don't like video games, but it's not because they're games. It's
because
the games are largely violence-oriented and because they deprive the kids who
play them of the physical exercise and personal interaction that they'd have
if they weren't afraid to go outside.
3:17 a.m.
> You clearly believe that 'toy' and
'computer' are mutually exclusive. I
> do not.
That was very much a valid distinction in 1980, but
because microelectronics
applied to the toy market are as valid and "real" an application asn any
other, it's no longer the case.
So why do *you* bother drawing a distinction between the two if toys are a
valid use? A computer is a computer, no matter what it's used for, right?
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- I use my C-128 because I am an ornery, stubborn, retro grouch. -- Bob Masse
4:17 a.m.
And thusly Cameron Kaiser spake:
So why do *you* bother drawing a distinction between the two if toys are a
valid use? A computer is a computer, no matter what it's used for, right?
techweb defines "computer" as:
A general-purpose machine that processes data according to a set of
instructions that are stored internally either temporarily or
permanently. The computer and all equipment attached to it are called
hardware. The instructions that tell it what to do are called
"software." A set of instructions that perform a particular task is
called a "program" or "software program."
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- I use my C-128 because I am an ornery, stubborn, retro grouch. -- Bob Masse
Who is Bob Masse?
Cheers,
Bryan
4:56 a.m.
So why do
*you* bother drawing a distinction between the two if toys are a
valid use? A computer is a computer, no matter what it's used for, right?
techweb defines "computer" as:
A general-purpose machine that processes data according to a set of
instructions that are stored internally either temporarily or
permanently. The computer and all equipment attached to it are called
hardware. The instructions that tell it what to do are called
"software." A set of instructions that perform a particular task is
called a "program" or "software program." > I use my C-128 because I am an ornery, stubborn,
retro grouch. --Bob Masse
Who is Bob Masse?
He was on comp.sys.cbm for awhile but I haven't seen him recently. Another
Inland Empire Commodore guy along with Todd Elliott and myself.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- FORTUNE: You will be hit with a lot of money. Avoid armoured trucks. -------
4 May
4 May
6:50 a.m.
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Exactly my point. Calling a lower-power computer a
"toy" is simply an
artificial and needlessly pejorative designation.
This statement is true about the Apple ][, but a Commodore 64 is really
just a toy :)
(At least all I ever used one for was to play games :P
He was on comp.sys.cbm for awhile but I haven't
seen him recently.
Another Inland Empire Commodore guy along with Todd Elliott and myself.
Isn't the "Inland Empire" moniker only supposed to describe the area east
of Pasadena and north of San Diego county (i.e. Orange county and up)?
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
9:30 a.m.
Exactly my
point. Calling a lower-power computer a "toy" is simply an
artificial and needlessly pejorative designation.
This statement is true about the Apple ][, but a Commodore 64 is really
just a toy :)
(At least all I ever used one for was to play games :P He was on
comp.sys.cbm for awhile but I haven't seen him recently.
Another Inland Empire Commodore guy along with Todd Elliott and myself.
Isn't the "Inland Empire" moniker only supposed to describe the area east
of Pasadena and north of San Diego county (i.e. Orange county and up)?
3:26 p.m.
Now, wait a minute ... I think somebody's got this backward ...
There were lots of computers that had, literally, a toy at their heart.
Somebody pointed out, however, that the SONY PS2 had been modified to run
LINUX. I doubt, somehow, that it is in any sense a "low-powered" computer
even though its host PS2 is certainly a toy.
The confusion may arise from the fact the vendors of those early "computer
toys" such as the ones I pointed out originally were not sure whether they
wanted to play in the computer market or in the toy market. They'd put out
what was, to some people, a gaming console, and to others, the start of a
computer system. Then they waited to see what sold enough to warrant the next
step. In some cases the sales were enough to warrant another step in each
direction. I don't know where that would ultimately lead, but there's
evidence of this in the range of devices sold for some of the Commodores.
It's not likely that either the term TOY or the term COMPUTER should be viewed
as a pejorative. It all depended on what you wanted at the time. There's
ample proof about that a toy could become a computer, and not just an
underpowered one, and there's ample evidence that a computer can become a toy.
Just look around you.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Kaiser" <spectre(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
Naughty. :-P
Orange County isn't east of Pasadena :-) IE refers to Riverside County
specifically although usually south San Bernardino County is included also.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Exactly my point. Calling a lower-power computer a
"toy" is simply an
artificial and needlessly pejorative designation.
This statement is true about the Apple ][, but a Commodore 64 is really
just a toy :)
(At least all I ever used one for was to play games :P He was on
comp.sys.cbm for awhile but I haven't seen him recently.
Another Inland Empire Commodore guy along with Todd Elliott and myself.
Isn't the "Inland Empire" moniker only supposed to describe the area east
of Pasadena and north of San Diego county (i.e. Orange county and up)? Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University *
ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- One learns to itch where one can scratch. -- Ernest
Bramah -----------------
26 Apr
26 Apr
6:42 p.m.
It's the way in which the packaging effects the convenience of a given use.
The "toy" makes it easy to use as a game machine, in most cases, while the
"computer" makes it more convenient to compute. Never mind the fact that,
viewed from the inside, there's not a nickel's worth of difference.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Kaiser" <spectre(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
microelectronics
http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
> You
clearly believe that 'toy' and 'computer' are mutually exclusive. I
> do not.
> That was very much a valid distinction in 1980, but because applied to the
toy market are as valid and "real" an application asn any
other, it's no longer the case.
So why do *you* bother drawing a distinction between the two if toys are a
valid use? A computer is a computer, no matter what it's used for, right?
--
----------------------------- personal page: Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University *
ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- I use my C-128 because I am an ornery, stubborn,
retro grouch. -- Bob
Masse
11:26 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1765 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020427/50a20f6f/at…
6:29 p.m.
Lots of perfectly useable computers started out as little more than toys.
more below ...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
Yes we were, and yes it does, but the timeline on which I was focusing was
1980, because there were several milestones associated with that. One of them
was, IIRC, the release of the "last" version of Apple Dos, and the other was
the emergence of the half-height 5-1.4" diskette drive. Another was the drop
in price of 8" DSDD drives to under $500 through distribution. I have pretty
good recollection of some of what was going on in '80 because I spent the
first half of that year mostly sitting at home fooling with computer hardware
and straining to grow back a leg I'd lost in a traffic accident the previous
year. I bought a couple of rather large, heavy, populated dual disk drive
boxes that year, and quickly learned that it wasn't easy moving things from a
loading dock to the trunk of the car when you had to hop on one foot to do it.
There were numerous things that made distinct impressions ...
I've done that
too, and have even built front-panels as diagnostic tools, but
I don't find it amusing even to enter a 30-40 byte program via the swtiches,
and certainly wouldn't enjoy toggling in the bootloader that way every
morning. I'd draw the line at 200 bytes or so. I guess that's why 1702's
turned out to be so useful.
Nevertheless, Ed Roberts has gone on record as
saying he didn't intend the
thing to grow into a computer, which suggests that he didn't originally view
it as one.
It was an educational computer toy, right up to the point at which it became
endowed with I/O that would allow it to input and output data at a rate
sufficient to accomplish useful work. Before that point, it wasn't even as
useful as a bicycle, since it lacked wheels.
Being a toy is not a problem until you want to make it into something the mfg
didn't intend. It's still not an insurmountable burden at that point, but it
isn't as easy as simply buying what you need. Just as everyone isn't
interested in building their own microcomputer from just the parts and some
wire, etc, not everyone is interested in doing much more than buying the
component devices, lashing the system up, and running the commercially
available software.
> > [Altair]
> > >
> > > It was designed as a TOY. It first appeared in an article in a
niche
> magazine
> > > You clearly believe that
'toy' and 'computer' are mutually exclusive. I
> > do not.
> > That was very much a valid distinction in
1980, but because
microelectronics
applied to the
toy market are as valid and "real" an application asn any
other, it's no longer the case.
I thought we were talking about the Altair, which predates 1980.
>
> > > specializing TOYS. Since no software, means for getting it in,
means
for
IIRC there was a front panel. Surely I am not the only person here to
have entered software using toggle switches....
> ... and you feel it's warranted to spend vast amounts of money, which the
> Altair cost, on a machine with no means for putting code/data in or out
except
I was under the impression that, although the Altair was limited, you
couldn't get anything better _at the time_ for the same money. There's no
point in saying that there were better computers available (definitely
true) if all you could afford were the bits to make an Altair.
IIRC, there were machines from both Intel and DEC that you could buy. They
were more capable, hence, more expensive. There were also a couple of small
computer devices based on pre-8080 cpu's that were "out there" though not
as
widely popular as the Altair. Now, that was in '75-'76. Microcomputers were
not the "thing" yet. In early 1980, I remember that almost no engineering
office I visited, and not just electronics engineering offices, was without
some sort of microcomputer, and many of them were from MITS or IMSAI. The key
was that those would allow the user to run CP/M and that would allow them to
run FORTRAN, in which a vast amount of public-domain engineering software had
been written.
And yes I do feel it would have been worth spending that amount of money
on an Altair if you wanted to learn about computers.
That's a totally different thing. The Speak-n-Spell was an educational
tool/toy, but it was not designed to teach you about computers. It
happened to use a microcontroller, but it was not user-programmable. The
Altair was intended, in part, as a tool to teach you about computers and
programming, and as such it was a real computer, designed to be
user-programmed...
Well, that's certainly true ... it was intended to teach you about spelling.
They're not comparable, but they're both educational toys. It's like a gun.
If you buy a pellet gun as one might for plinking cans or even shooting rats,
it can do some serious damage. However, if your intent is to do some serious
damage, there are far better choices you could make. That was the situation
at the time. The thing that made the Altair a breakthrough was its price.
You could, given a wirewrap card, etc, build a pretty extensive computer
around that hardware and end up with a fully functional computer for under
$10K, which was unheard-of in that time frame.
It's
purpose (IMHO) was clearly as an educational tool.
Yes, as was the "Speak-n-Spell" which was sold in toy stores everywhere.
24 Apr
24 Apr
5:22 a.m.
refer to things that didn't/couldn't have
internal mass storage
interfaces as
toys and allow that things that did/could have them as computers.
An amazingly strange and irrelevant distinction!
Where was the mass storage interface of a 360 physically located? The
disk drives were NOT in the same box as the CPU.
I sincerely doubt that putting the disk controller inside or outside the
CPU box has any significant effect on the Zuse number of the computer.
10:59 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1003 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020424/8c62357d/at…
11:57 a.m.
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Tony Duell wrote:
How about an S/390. There's racks and racks of disk. They wouldn't come
anywhere near close to fitting in the CPU cabinet. The *disk controller*
is a *double 27" rack* full of hardware. I *know* an S/390 wasn't meant
as a toy.
Peace... Sridhar
Where was the
mass storage interface of a 360 physically located? The
disk drives were NOT in the same box as the CPU.
The original configuration of the PDP11/45 I now own was an RK03 (I
don't think the RK05 had been released at that point!) with an RK11-C
controller. The RK11-C was 4 rows of flip-chip boards that mounted
separately in the rack -- it didn't fit into the CPU box. So
presumably this PDP11/45 was intended as a toy. THis is nothing short
of amazing!
2:30 p.m.
I *know* an
S/390 wasn't meant as a toy.
I DON'T CARE! Tell Santa that I WANT IT!
3:11 p.m.
In the case of a '360, the BUILDING was the enclosure.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
refer to
things that didn't/couldn't have internal mass storage
interfaces as
toys and allow that things that did/could have them as computers.
An amazingly strange and irrelevant distinction!
Where was the mass storage interface of a 360 physically located? The
disk drives were NOT in the same box as the CPU.
I sincerely doubt that putting the disk controller inside or outside the
CPU box has any significant effect on the Zuse number of the computer.
25 Apr
25 Apr
6:09 a.m.
--- Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com> wrote:
In the case of a '360, the BUILDING was the
enclosure.
Dick
"The whole *house* becomes a speaker... you move into the garage"
-- Stan Freeburg, "Hi-Fi" sketch
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
7:57 a.m.
> refer to things that didn't/couldn't have
internal mass storage
> interfaces as
> toys and allow that things that did/could have them as computers.
An amazingly strange and irrelevant distinction!
Where was the mass storage interface of a 360
physically located? The
disk drives were NOT in the same box as the CPU.
I sincerely doubt that putting the disk controller
inside or outside the
CPU box has any significant effect on the Zuse number of the computer.
Well, usualy I say it has - Realy computers have at least one
additional rack for the disk controler, which adds footage and
weight :)
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
27 Apr
27 Apr
4:34 a.m.
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
An amazingly strange and irrelevant distinction!
Where was the mass storage interface of a 360 physically located? The
disk drives were NOT in the same box as the CPU.
I sincerely doubt that putting the disk controller inside or outside the
CPU box has any significant effect on the Zuse number of the computer.
Speaking of which, the Zuse factor formula was officially proposed today
at VCF Europa 3.0. I've created a PHP script that computes your
computer's Zuse factor. It's still in Beta mode, but will work for the
most part.
http://www.vintage.org/features/zuse.php
The larger your number, the cooler or more classic your computer. Modern
computers, and even micros from the 1980s, will come up with a very small
number (1E-9 or smaller). I'm working on adding prefixes such as "micro",
"nano", "pico" etc. instead of just outputting a puny number.
If you don't like the formula, blame Hans, but it does seem to work for
the most part.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
9:30 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 299 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020427/7fc87e67/at…
28 Apr
28 Apr
12:43 a.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
>If you don't like the formula, blame Hans, but
it does seem to work for
>the most part.
And what is the formula you finally decided on?
Awp/BI
where A is area in square meters, w is weight in kg, p = power in Watts,
B is total storage in bits, and I is instructions per second
Just reporting from the web site.
-- hbp
2:13 a.m.
so it's really a cost/benefit ratio, right? The number increases as the cost
increases, and the number decreases as the benefits increase.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans B Pufal" <hansp(a)aconit.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
Tony Duell wrote:
>If you don't like the formula, blame Hans,
but it does seem to work for
>the most part.
And what is the formula you finally decided on?
Awp/BI
where A is area in square meters, w is weight in kg, p = power in Watts,
B is total storage in bits, and I is instructions per second
Just reporting from the web site.
-- hbp
3:56 a.m.
Awp/BI
where A is area in square meters, w is weight in kg, p = power in Watts,
B is total storage in bits, and I is instructions per second
Hmm -- directly proportional to size and power consumption, and inversely
to speed, and what do you mean by total storage in bits? Would a C64 then
have a B of 65536 * 8?
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- Apathetic dyslexic agnostic: "I don't care if there's a dog"
---------------
4 May
4 May
7:17 a.m.
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Tony Duell wrote:
See the webpage, which answers all questions that I cared to answer :)
http://www.vintage.org/features/zuse.php
Otherwise, ask Hans.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
Speaking of
which, the Zuse factor formula was officially proposed today
at VCF Europa 3.0. I've created a PHP script that computes your
[...]
If you don't like the formula, blame Hans,
but it does seem to work for
the most part.
And what is the formula you finally decided on?
7:20 a.m.
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Tony Duell wrote:
Ok, in the interest of sparking discussion and to fine tune the formula,
it's:
Awp
---
BI
A = Area in square meters
w = Weight in kilograms
p = Power in Watts
B = Total storage bits (i.e. total K-bytes * 8 or total M-bytes * 1024 * 8)
I = Instructions per Second
We calculated the Zuse 1 and the Zuse factor came out to something like
200.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
Speaking of
which, the Zuse factor formula was officially proposed today
at VCF Europa 3.0. I've created a PHP script that computes your
[...]
If you don't like the formula, blame Hans,
but it does seem to work for
the most part.
And what is the formula you finally decided on?
8:56 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1276 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020504/c00ab56f/at…
5 May
5 May
6:34 a.m.
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Tony Duell wrote:
Do you mean that, or have you dropped a factor of 1024 from both
examples. In other words, is B in bits or kilobits?
Ok, I meant total "bytes" and not "K-" or "M-" bytes.
And what is the formula you finally decided on?
Ok, in the interest of sparking discussion and to fine tune the formula,
it's:
Awp
---
BI
A = Area in square meters
w = Weight in kilograms
p = Power in Watts
B = Total storage bits (i.e. total K-bytes * 8 or total M-bytes * 1024 * 8) And all my machines, even ones I thought to be
'classic' seem have very
low Zuse values :
Blame Hans.
Am I missing something here, or are all the machines
we're likely to own
going to have rediculously low values?
Blame Hans.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
24 Apr
24 Apr
1:20 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
>Computers of the '80's had mass storage.
Video toys did not. That's why I
>refer to things that didn't/couldn't have internal mass storage interfaces
as
>toys and allow that things that did/could have
them as computers. Later
on,
>that was no longer a valid basis for classifying
them, since it simply
became
>cheaper to put the mass storage interface inside
the box. In the '80's,
toy
>vendors wanted you to buy small, at an inflated
price, and then buy small
>again, also at an inflated price. Computer makers had to compete with one
>another, while game/toy vendors didn't have to compete with computer
makers.
Plenty of people couldn't afford what you consider a computer
and had their first experience with computers using what you deem as
'toys'. I doubt that early user's of the Atari, Commodore, TRS-80 or
Sinclair machines would appreciate that label though. Nor did
everyone have either the ability or desire to write major portions of
the OS to get into the S-100 bus boxes, even if they could afford
them.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
1:50 p.m.
see below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
>Computers of the '80's had mass storage.
Video toys did not. That's why I
>refer to things that didn't/couldn't have internal mass storage interfaces
as
>toys and allow that things that did/could have
them as computers. Later
on,
>that was no longer a valid basis for classifying
them, since it simply
became
>cheaper to put the mass storage interface inside
the box. In the '80's,
toy
>vendors wanted you to buy small, at an inflated
price, and then buy small
>again, also at an inflated price. Computer makers had to compete with one
>another, while game/toy vendors didn't have to compete with computer
makers.
Plenty of people couldn't afford what you consider a computer
and had their first experience with computers using what you deem as
'toys'.
I make the distinction thus:
In the early days, 1980 and earlier, people got their low-end computers, e.g.
Commodore Pet, TRS-80, minimally equipped APPLE, etc, into the house under the
guise of being able to do useful works with respect to the household ...
generically referred to as "balancing the checkbook" but not limited to that.
They were seldom used for that. They were tools for self-amusement/abuse,
often leading to increased drinking, smoking, cursing, and profuse consumption
of potato chips, coffee, cola, or whatever. These things were, functionally,
computers, though they really were toys for the technically inclined, and
those who wished they were. If they ended up as computers, they consisted of
various boxes on the table, often taking up the entire surface of a door from
the lumber yard, on two saw-horses.
Later on, a wide range of video toys became available. These enabled the
kids, equipped with an old TV set and an RF modulator, to play various
on-screen games which amused the kids for a few days or even a week. They
were smuggled into the household under the guise of providing
amusement/education for the kids. With the expenditure of vast sums of money,
one ended up with pretty much what one would end up with following the path
above, spending probably about the same amount of money, overall, yet they
still really were toys. For whom? Well, that's going to depend on who's
asking. If they ended up as computers, they consisted of various boxes on the
table, often taking up the entire surface of a door from the lumber yard, on
two saw-horses.
If one wanted a computer, and didn't have to fool anyone about what it was, or
why it was being acquired, one bought a computer. It cost about the same
amount as the stuff in the two paragraps above, but it was integrated such
that it would function from day 1 as a computer. Often it was an S-100 box,
in which case one had to spend an hour or two with the BIOS configuration,
and, if one had a lot of I/O, that could grow into a few weeks of evenings and
weekends. Normally, one bought a controller and CPU board from the same
vendor, and the CPU board often had the console port on it. These were
intended for use with a serial terminal, however, and not with memory-mapped
video. In some cases, you bought a video board, e.g. the SD Systems VDB8024
or whatever it was called (I've got one, but I've never used it.) together
with the SD systems CPU (SBC100, SBC200, or whatever) and the SD Versafloppy
I, II, III or whatever. This was accompanied with a BIOS capable of running
the hardware on those boards, together with a fresh, clean copy of CP/M 2.2.
If you had additional hardware, you had to write a BIOS extension that would
do the work, which could be tricky but generally wasn't unless you had TPA
size problems. For me, the progression was as follows.
Open the box. Open the S-100 mainframe. Open the individual card boxes,
extract the cards and plug them into the mainframe. Open the carton the in
which the FDD enclosure traveled. Extract the enclosure, insert the 8" floppy
drives. Attach the cables to their respective sockets, at each end, attach
power cables, power on the Terminal, power up the S-100 box, Power up the
FDD's, insert the boot disk, watch the lights bling, ... WHAT? no display?
... oh yeah... attach the serial cable to the terminal. repeat the process...
and 64k CP/M 2.2 is booted. Total elapsed time, 4 weeks of shopping, 1 week
for shipping, 1.5 hours fiddling with boxes, cables, enclosures, etc. 45
seconds to boot the 1st time. ... done... Cost? well, the two Mistubishi 8"
DSDD drives cost $479 each, the terminal cost $753, shipped the CCS hardware,
including CPU, FDD, 64KB DRAM, 4-additional serial port card, 4 parallel in +
4 parallel out card, mainframe, FD box (the one I sent you) $1479, I think. I
don't remember what the shipping cost was, but that was in '79. Later the
next year I attached an ST-506 drive.
Until the hard disk became a project, the only code I had to write was a
printer handler for a daisywheel, which meant writing an x-on/x-off handler
for one of the serial ports. That might have taken an hour or two. I later
got a dot-matrix parallel printer, so that needed a simple driver to manage
the strobe an busy lines. Also not very challenging.
I doubt that early users of the Atari, Commodore,
TRS-80 or
Sinclair machines would appreciate that label though. Nor did
everyone have either the ability or desire to write major portions of
the OS to get into the S-100 bus boxes, even if they could afford
them.
It's not a pejorative, it's just a distinction.
3:26 p.m.
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Richard, I have some bad news for you...
In the early days, 1980 and earlier, people got their
low-end computers, e.g.
Commodore Pet, TRS-80, minimally equipped APPLE, etc, into the house under the
guise of being able to do useful works with respect to the household ...
generically referred to as "balancing the checkbook" but not limited to that.
They were seldom used for that. They were tools for self-amusement/abuse,
Today, in 2002, people get their low-end computers, e.g. e-Machines,
Gateway, Dell, minimally equipped COMPAQ, etc, into the house under the
guise of being able to do useful works with respect to the household ...
generically referred to as "getting on the internet" but not limited to
that. They are often used for just that, but few people notice that it's
seldom anything close to 'useful'. They are tools for self-amusement/abuse.
These things are, functionally, computers, though they are really consumer
toys.
Later on, a wide range of video toys became available.
These enabled the
kids, equipped with an old TV set and an RF modulator, to play various
on-screen games which amused the kids for a few days or even a week. They
were smuggled into the household under the guise of providing
amusement/education for the kids. With the expenditure of vast sums of money,
one ended up with pretty much what one would end up with following the path
above, spending probably about the same amount of money, overall, yet they
still really were toys.
A small array of video toys are available. They enable the kids, equipped
with an old TV set and an A/V cable, to play various on-screen games which
amuse them for a few days or even a week. They are brought openly into the
house (I guess at least this much has changed) under the guise of
providing amusement/education for the kids. With the expendiuture of vast
sums of money, one ended up with pretty much what one would end up with
following the path above, spending probably about the same amount of money
overall.
If one wanted a computer, and didn't have to fool
anyone about what it was, or
why it was being acquired, one bought a computer. It cost about the same
amount as the stuff in the two paragraps above, but it was integrated such
that it would function from day 1 as a computer. Often it was an S-100 box,
I have worse news: today, it's called a Macintosh. Before you argue with
me, consider that nobody in their right mind would want to buy a computer
with less than 10% market penetration, without a pretty compelling reason.
I find that most Mac users I talk to have compelling reasons for owning
Macs. People that want a PC will buy a PC. People that want a Mac will buy
a Mac. People that want a computer will buy a PC (though IMO they would be
better served with Macs, but that's solely my own opinion and you're not
going to change it, so please don't try).
On another note, I concede that Byte is not the best price guide, but it's
the resource I had available. I'm still skeptical the difference was THAT
great.
25 Apr
25 Apr
4:34 a.m.
New subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
--- "r. 'bear' stricklin" <red(a)bears.org> wrote:
On another note, I concede that Byte is not the best
price guide, but
it's the resource I had available. I'm still skeptical the difference
was THAT great.
I would tend to agree with you. I remember looking at prices in Byte
and being disgusted at the time, but if you could afford to advertise
there, you weren't small potatoes.
Computer Shopper is a good place for bargain prices of the day, with
less "print lag" than Byte. One of the things I hated was seeing
"*CALL*"
for 80% of prices for what I was interested in, but I know that things
changed too fast to commit to a price 90 days in advance.
Local sales flyers are also a good place to cull pricing information, if
you can find them. There are a few on the web and I have a couple from
way-back-when.
One of the cool things about an Atari 800 system a friend gave me when
he moved was that it came with Atari official price sheets, and, since
the donor was an Engineer, he saved every single receipt for every
item he ever bought - $2,500 for the base system (CPU, 32KB RAM,
printer, external serial ports, modem, two floppies, acoustic coupler,
tape drive, manuals, joysticks, etc.) and that was about 80% of MSRP!
It's only one data point, but it is *spot on*. Some real person paid
those real dollars for a machine that is completely documented.
It's also interesting to look back at what the big iron used to cost.
Somewhere, I have a DEC third-party-reseller flyer listing the RA81
at $14,000 (we paid $26,000 for one in 1984) - that's about $33/MB,
or about 1650000% more than a modern 100GB drive ($0.002/MB)
While I don't have a massive pile of pricing data (that isn't in
the backs of magazines), I think it's an interesting category of
data to save. Sometimes the "good old days" don't look so good.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
5:21 a.m.
New subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
And thusly Ethan Dicks spake:
One of the cool things about an Atari 800 system a friend gave me when
he moved was that it came with Atari official price sheets, and, since
the donor was an Engineer, he saved every single receipt for every
item he ever bought - $2,500 for the base system (CPU, 32KB RAM,
printer, external serial ports, modem, two floppies, acoustic coupler,
tape drive, manuals, joysticks, etc.) and that was about 80% of MSRP!
It's only one data point, but it is *spot on*. Some real person paid
those real dollars for a machine that is completely documented.
It's also interesting to look back at what the big iron used to cost.
Somewhere, I have a DEC third-party-reseller flyer listing the RA81
at $14,000 (we paid $26,000 for one in 1984) - that's about $33/MB,
or about 1650000% more than a modern 100GB drive ($0.002/MB)
While I don't have a massive pile of pricing data (that isn't in
the backs of magazines), I think it's an interesting category of
data to save. Sometimes the "good old days" don't look so good.
But can you really compare the smaller-faster-cheaper of today *directly* to
what was available say, in 1980? Wouldn't that be like comparing how much
groceries were in 1980 without factoring in inflation?
This is like a pet peeve of mine - reviews of classic games that have been
ported to modern systems. The reviewer will always point out how blocky the
graphics are or how the sound leaves a lot to be desired. :-(
Cheers,
Bryan
5:57 a.m.
New subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
--- Bryan Pope <bpope(a)wordstock.com> wrote:
But can you really compare the smaller-faster-cheaper
of today *directly*
to what was available say, in 1980? Wouldn't that be like comparing how
much groceries were in 1980 without factoring in inflation?
No you cannot. Not directly. You can, if you care to take the time,
filter through publicly available economic data and adjust any price
sheet you want to "1970 dollars" or whatever benchmark suits. Personally,
I compare it to my own salary history (for stuff that for my own use).
YMMV
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
6:31 a.m.
New subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
I still have many of my old computer receipts.
My first IBM PC (December 1981) cost nearly $2,800 for a 64K machine, 1 SSDD
floppy (120K with DOS 1.0) and a color card with an RF Modulator.
I have a notebook full of receipts and invoices that came with a pair of
Altairs. In addition to the costs for the specific machines there are also
receipts for various other hardware items including old Cromemco and SOL
stuff. I'll have to take a more careful look at some point and either scan
those or post the prices here.
Erik S. Klein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Ethan Dicks
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:35 AM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
--- "r. 'bear' stricklin" <red(a)bears.org> wrote:
On another note, I concede that Byte is not the best
price guide, but
it's the resource I had available. I'm still skeptical the difference
was THAT great.
I would tend to agree with you. I remember looking at prices in Byte
and being disgusted at the time, but if you could afford to advertise
there, you weren't small potatoes.
Computer Shopper is a good place for bargain prices of the day, with
less "print lag" than Byte. One of the things I hated was seeing
"*CALL*"
for 80% of prices for what I was interested in, but I know that things
changed too fast to commit to a price 90 days in advance.
Local sales flyers are also a good place to cull pricing information, if
you can find them. There are a few on the web and I have a couple from
way-back-when.
One of the cool things about an Atari 800 system a friend gave me when
he moved was that it came with Atari official price sheets, and, since
the donor was an Engineer, he saved every single receipt for every
item he ever bought - $2,500 for the base system (CPU, 32KB RAM,
printer, external serial ports, modem, two floppies, acoustic coupler,
tape drive, manuals, joysticks, etc.) and that was about 80% of MSRP!
It's only one data point, but it is *spot on*. Some real person paid
those real dollars for a machine that is completely documented.
It's also interesting to look back at what the big iron used to cost.
Somewhere, I have a DEC third-party-reseller flyer listing the RA81
at $14,000 (we paid $26,000 for one in 1984) - that's about $33/MB,
or about 1650000% more than a modern 100GB drive ($0.002/MB)
While I don't have a massive pile of pricing data (that isn't in
the backs of magazines), I think it's an interesting category of
data to save. Sometimes the "good old days" don't look so good.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
7:52 a.m.
New subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Erik S. Klein wrote:
I still have many of my old computer receipts.
My first IBM PC (December 1981) cost nearly $2,800 for a 64K machine, 1 SSDD
floppy (120K with DOS 1.0) and a color card with an RF Modulator.
That was 160K for the DOS 1.00. 512 bytes per sector, 8 sectors per
track, 40 tracks, 1 side. (multiply) arguably (rarely done), you could
subtract 4.5K if you don't consider the DIRectory to be part of the disk
capacity.
You could have saved ~$400 by buying the same Tandon TM100-1 drive
after-market.
You could have saved ~$400 by buying 48K of the RAM aftermarket.
You could have saved ~$100 by buying the RF modulator aftermarket.
($1360 for bare computer + $300 for video card + $300 for disk controller
+ everything else aftermarket)
You could have paid more for CP/M-86 or UCSD P-system. (neither available
immediately, but in 6 months.)
IBM sold Easy-Writer (by John Draper) and VisiCalc.
9:23 a.m.
New subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
I've found it useful to show prices of common things
or people's salaries when stating "X cost Y in year
Z", like:
-A typical car cost X in Y
-A middle class home cost X in Y
-A teacher generally made X in Y
This gives some graspable perspective to younger
people.
For example, I think you could buy 4 or 5 loaded
Cadillacs for the cost of a PDP-8 in 1965.
Of course, these values and prices aren't stable,
either; I read an interesting article about the
constant value of gold. In George Washington's time,
an ounce of gold would buy you a very good (but not
super-expensive) suit. It still does!
--- "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Erik S. Klein wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
I still have many of my old computer receipts.
My first IBM PC (December 1981) cost nearly $2,800
for a 64K machine, 1 SSDD
floppy (120K with DOS 1.0) and a color card with
an RF Modulator.
That was 160K for the DOS 1.00. 512 bytes per
sector, 8 sectors per
track, 40 tracks, 1 side. (multiply) arguably
(rarely done), you could
subtract 4.5K if you don't consider the DIRectory to
be part of the disk
capacity.
You could have saved ~$400 by buying the same Tandon
TM100-1 drive
after-market.
You could have saved ~$400 by buying 48K of the RAM
aftermarket.
You could have saved ~$100 by buying the RF
modulator aftermarket.
($1360 for bare computer + $300 for video card +
$300 for disk controller
+ everything else aftermarket)
You could have paid more for CP/M-86 or UCSD
P-system. (neither available
immediately, but in 6 months.)
IBM sold Easy-Writer (by John Draper) and VisiCalc.
9:28 a.m.
New subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
My bad on the disk size. My memory gets worse and worse.
I eventually did buy TM100-2s for that machine and expanded it with a
Quadboard and bulk-purchased 4164s. A surplus B&W composite monitor served
for a bit before a Princeton RGB display replaced it. I wish I'd have saved
that machine. I haven't seen one with a lower serial number since.
IBM was pricey in the day, but they were competitive. You still pay nearly
$3K for cutting edge.
Erik S. Klein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 12:53 PM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Erik S. Klein wrote:
I still have many of my old computer receipts.
My first IBM PC (December 1981) cost nearly $2,800 for a 64K machine, 1
SSDD
floppy (120K with DOS 1.0) and a color card with an RF
Modulator.
That was 160K for the DOS 1.00. 512 bytes per sector, 8 sectors per
track, 40 tracks, 1 side. (multiply) arguably (rarely done), you could
subtract 4.5K if you don't consider the DIRectory to be part of the disk
capacity.
You could have saved ~$400 by buying the same Tandon TM100-1 drive
after-market.
You could have saved ~$400 by buying 48K of the RAM aftermarket.
You could have saved ~$100 by buying the RF modulator aftermarket.
($1360 for bare computer + $300 for video card + $300 for disk controller
+ everything else aftermarket)
You could have paid more for CP/M-86 or UCSD P-system. (neither available
immediately, but in 6 months.)
IBM sold Easy-Writer (by John Draper) and VisiCalc.
2:16 p.m.
New subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Erik S. Klein wrote:
My bad on the disk size. My memory gets worse and
worse.
'salright; Few folk remember even that much.
I eventually did buy TM100-2s for that machine and
expanded it with a
Quadboard and bulk-purchased 4164s. A surplus B&W composite monitor served
for a bit before a Princeton RGB display replaced it. I wish I'd have saved
that machine. I haven't seen one with a lower serial number since.
Why? What number was it? (Now I'm going to have to dig deep to check
mine.)
Did yours have the extra DB blockoff plate on the back panel?
Did it have a drive mounting screw coming up from the bottom?
My first 5150 came from IBM with a WHITE (NOT RED!) power switch, and a
BLACK power supply (63.5W?)
These days, I hardly EVER even see the 16K-64K motherboard ones.
IBM was pricey in the day, but they were competitive.
You still pay nearly
$3K for cutting edge.
But since it used the same drives and RAM as TRS-80, it wasn't VERY hard
to find substantially cheaper aftermarket prices (among TRS-80 sources),
rather than paying IBM prices. For example: IIRC, IBM wanted $540 for
Tandon TM100-1, but I could get one with case and power supply for TRS-80
for $225, or about $150 for bare drive.
The RF-Modulator (SupRModII) was readily available from Apple sources.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
26 Apr
26 Apr
1:17 p.m.
New subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
The serial number of my first PC was 0106440. I think there was an
extra DB plate on the back and I'm pretty sure there were drive mounting
holes in the bottom of the case. There was also a cutout in the case
bottom below the power supply and the case cover was held on by two
screws rather than the five screws of the later PC and XT cases.
It also had the 64K motherboard and a black 63.5 watt power supply, but
with a red switch. I don't think I've ever seen a white one. . .
The oldest IBM PC I currently own (purchased last year) is nearly the
same without the knockout plate and case bottom screws, but then the
serial number is 0219682.
At least I still have the original manuals (DOS, BASIC and Guide to
Operations) from the first PC along with the receipt ($2235 for the 48k
PC, $90 for 16K additional, $50 for the Sup R Mod V, $300 for the color
adapter and $40 for DOS 1.0. I also bought 10 diskettes for $42 and the
Technical Reference Manual for $36 when I bought the system.
That first machine was traded for an IBM AT after a bit. That box
hosted a BBS system I ran in New York and then San Antonio for over 7
years before being retired.
Erik
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Fred Cisin
(XenoSoft)
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 7:17 PM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid
Lusers)
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Erik S. Klein wrote:
My bad on the disk size. My memory gets worse and
worse.
'salright; Few folk remember even that much.
I eventually did buy TM100-2s for that machine and
expanded it with a
Quadboard and bulk-purchased 4164s. A surplus B&W composite monitor
served
for a bit before a Princeton RGB display replaced it.
I wish I'd have
saved
that machine. I haven't seen one with a lower
serial number since.
Why? What number was it? (Now I'm going to have to dig deep to check
mine.)
Did yours have the extra DB blockoff plate on the back panel?
Did it have a drive mounting screw coming up from the bottom?
My first 5150 came from IBM with a WHITE (NOT RED!) power switch, and a
BLACK power supply (63.5W?)
These days, I hardly EVER even see the 16K-64K motherboard ones.
IBM was pricey in the day, but they were competitive.
You still pay
nearly
$3K for cutting edge.
But since it used the same drives and RAM as TRS-80, it wasn't VERY hard
to find substantially cheaper aftermarket prices (among TRS-80 sources),
rather than paying IBM prices. For example: IIRC, IBM wanted $540 for
Tandon TM100-1, but I could get one with case and power supply for
TRS-80
for $225, or about $150 for bare drive.
The RF-Modulator (SupRModII) was readily available from Apple sources.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
25 Apr
25 Apr
8:36 a.m.
New subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
That might prove VERY interesting, particularly if the dates are still
legible.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik S. Klein" <eklein(a)impac.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
I still have many of my old computer receipts.
My first IBM PC (December 1981) cost nearly $2,800 for a 64K machine, 1 SSDD
floppy (120K with DOS 1.0) and a color card with an RF Modulator.
I have a notebook full of receipts and invoices that came with a pair of
Altairs. In addition to the costs for the specific machines there are also
receipts for various other hardware items including old Cromemco and SOL
stuff. I'll have to take a more careful look at some point and either scan
those or post the prices here.
Erik S. Klein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Ethan Dicks
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:35 AM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
--- "r. 'bear' stricklin" <red(a)bears.org> wrote:
On another note, I concede that Byte is not the
best price guide, but
it's the resource I had available. I'm still skeptical the difference
was THAT great.
I would tend to agree with you. I remember looking at prices in Byte
and being disgusted at the time, but if you could afford to advertise
there, you weren't small potatoes.
Computer Shopper is a good place for bargain prices of the day, with
less "print lag" than Byte. One of the things I hated was seeing
"*CALL*"
for 80% of prices for what I was interested in, but I know that things
changed too fast to commit to a price 90 days in advance.
Local sales flyers are also a good place to cull pricing information, if
you can find them. There are a few on the web and I have a couple from
way-back-when.
One of the cool things about an Atari 800 system a friend gave me when
he moved was that it came with Atari official price sheets, and, since
the donor was an Engineer, he saved every single receipt for every
item he ever bought - $2,500 for the base system (CPU, 32KB RAM,
printer, external serial ports, modem, two floppies, acoustic coupler,
tape drive, manuals, joysticks, etc.) and that was about 80% of MSRP!
It's only one data point, but it is *spot on*. Some real person paid
those real dollars for a machine that is completely documented.
It's also interesting to look back at what the big iron used to cost.
Somewhere, I have a DEC third-party-reseller flyer listing the RA81
at $14,000 (we paid $26,000 for one in 1984) - that's about $33/MB,
or about 1650000% more than a modern 100GB drive ($0.002/MB)
While I don't have a massive pile of pricing data (that isn't in
the backs of magazines), I think it's an interesting category of
data to save. Sometimes the "good old days" don't look so good.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
2:20 p.m.
New subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
That might prove VERY interesting, particularly if the
dates are still
legible.
At VCF2000, I used an original 1981 IBM price list for pricing the PC
stuff that I had. I just moved the decimal point to charge exactly 1% of
the original price. 'course few people were willing to pay $5.40 for a
Tandon TM100-1, $3.xx for a CGA card, etc.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
26 Apr
26 Apr
1:48 p.m.
New subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
Some of the items from the "Book of Receipts" I got with the Altair
systems I purchased last month:
"*CALL*"
From Morrow Computer & Electronics Design Inc: 1
MITS Altair system,
Okidata printer, ADM 1, dual disk drives, mainframe, memory
boards,
2SIO, Prom, ACR $5000.00 + $50 to ship. - 11/29/78
From the Byte Shop: SSM-MB3 - $65, 2 2708s - $49 each,
4 1702a's for
$35, 4 S-100 edge connectors for $5 each and a roll of black tape
for
$4.25. - 12/28/76
From Solid State Music, Inc: 1 MB3 (2K/4K EPROM card) -
$64.95. 8080
Monitor on 8 1702s - $25. - 12/14/77 (why would he keep the receipt
but
not the manual!)
From Processor Technology Corp: VDM-1 Video Display
Module - $160, 3P+S
I/O Module - $125. - 4/12/76 (I have the Processor Tech price
sheet from
March 1, 1976 stapled to this receipt)
From MITS Inc: 88-16MCD (assembled) - $395, 88-2SIO w/1
port kit - $160,
88-SP K (extra Port for 88-2SIO) - $50. - 12/6/77
From Microsystems: ADM-3 Lear Siegler kit - $875. -
11/2/76
From Microsystems: 88-16MCS (16K static - Kit) $765,
88-VI (Vectored
Interrupt) $138, 88-RTC (real time clock) $53. - 4/10/76
From MITS Inc: 8800 Kit with 4K dynamic RAM, 2SIO, 4K
BASIC on paper
tape and an extra port for the 2SIO - $719. - 4/9/76
That's most of the interesting stuff. Every invoice or receipt is
accompanied by a check stub which verifies the amounts paid.
There are a ton of "repair" invoices in this book. Over the course of
about 3 years there seem to have been about 8 to 10 instances where
boards or entire systems were sent out for repair. Typical repairs cost
about $120.
This book also has several MITS catalogs and price lists which I'll scan
and post at some later date.
Cheers!
Erik
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Richard Erlacher
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 1:36 PM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid
Lusers)
That might prove VERY interesting, particularly if the dates are still
legible.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik S. Klein" <eklein(a)impac.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid
Lusers)
I still have many of my old computer receipts.
My first IBM PC (December 1981) cost nearly $2,800 for a 64K machine,
1 SSDD
floppy (120K with DOS 1.0) and a color card with an RF
Modulator.
I have a notebook full of receipts and invoices that came with a pair
of
Altairs. In addition to the costs for the specific
machines there are
also
receipts for various other hardware items including
old Cromemco and
SOL
stuff. I'll have to take a more careful look at
some point and either
scan
those or post the prices here.
Erik S. Klein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Ethan Dicks
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:35 AM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Period pricing references (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid
Lusers)
--- "r. 'bear' stricklin" <red(a)bears.org> wrote:
> On another note, I concede that Byte is not the best price guide,
but
> it's the resource I had available. I'm
still skeptical the
difference
was THAT
great.
I would tend to agree with you. I remember looking at prices in Byte
and being disgusted at the time, but if you could afford to advertise
there, you weren't small potatoes.
Computer Shopper is a good place for bargain prices of the day, with
less "print lag" than Byte. One of the things I hated was seeing
for 80% of prices for what I was interested in, but I
know that things
changed too fast to commit to a price 90 days in advance.
Local sales flyers are also a good place to cull pricing information,
if
you can find them. There are a few on the web and I
have a couple
from
way-back-when.
One of the cool things about an Atari 800 system a friend gave me when
he moved was that it came with Atari official price sheets, and, since
the donor was an Engineer, he saved every single receipt for every
item he ever bought - $2,500 for the base system (CPU, 32KB RAM,
printer, external serial ports, modem, two floppies, acoustic coupler,
tape drive, manuals, joysticks, etc.) and that was about 80% of MSRP!
It's only one data point, but it is *spot on*. Some real person paid
those real dollars for a machine that is completely documented.
It's also interesting to look back at what the big iron used to cost.
Somewhere, I have a DEC third-party-reseller flyer listing the RA81
at $14,000 (we paid $26,000 for one in 1984) - that's about $33/MB,
or about 1650000% more than a modern 100GB drive ($0.002/MB)
While I don't have a massive pile of pricing data (that isn't in
the backs of magazines), I think it's an interesting category of
data to save. Sometimes the "good old days" don't look so good.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
11:39 p.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
Open the box. Open the S-100 mainframe. Open the
individual card boxes,
extract the cards and plug them into the mainframe. Open the carton the in
which the FDD enclosure traveled. Extract the enclosure, insert the 8" floppy
drives. Attach the cables to their respective sockets, at each end, attach
power cables, power on the Terminal, power up the S-100 box, Power up the
FDD's, insert the boot disk, watch the lights bling, ... WHAT? no display?
... oh yeah... attach the serial cable to the terminal. repeat the process...
and 64k CP/M 2.2 is booted. Total elapsed time, 4 weeks of shopping, 1 week
for shipping, 1.5 hours fiddling with boxes, cables, enclosures, etc. 45
seconds to boot the 1st time. ... done... Cost? well, the two Mistubishi 8"
DSDD drives cost $479 each, the terminal cost $753, shipped the CCS hardware,
including CPU, FDD, 64KB DRAM, 4-additional serial port card, 4 parallel in +
4 parallel out card, mainframe, FD box (the one I sent you) $1479, I think. I
don't remember what the shipping cost was, but that was in '79. Later the
next year I attached an ST-506 drive.
Looking at the above and then looking at how one would expand
a CoCo or any of the early 'home' micros, I fail to see the
difference other than the orientation and placement of the exansion
buses. Both required you to add expansion cards for greater
functionality. One happened to house the cards internally while the
other didn't. You list a total of $3190 for the system above, that's
a far cry from the $599 for the TRS-80 Model I or $399 for the
original CoCo. Another thing to remember is that you list a system
made up primarily of one vendor's cards, that being California
Computer Systems. This made things quite easy, especially concerning
booting CP/M. Take a more typical hobbyist S-100 bus machine though,
with it's mix-and-match selection of S-100 bus boards, and the new
owner will likely have to spend quite a bit more time than 45 seconds
to get it to boot the OS for the first time. Did you have to expand
the CoCo or other 'home' 8bit machines to do useful things? No. Did
you have to spend time expanding most S-100 bus machines in order to
do anything useful? Yes. The higher level of integration coupled
with the much lower price is what opened the market up. Both systems
are 'real' computers, both capable of similar uses, they're just
aimed at different markets.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
25 Apr
25 Apr
11:36 a.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
This thread has become shanghaied down a path different that the one I
intended to take.
My point was that you didn't have to write code when you bought a computer
that was intended to be used as a computer in order just to get it to run your
OS and applications. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you
could buy an FDC from the same vendor as provided your CPU and minimal I/O,
and then you could be off and running. It didn't matter whose memory you
used, so long as it worked at the speed required by the CPU. If you wanted to
pick just any combination of boards, yes, you were on your own. It took a
real fool to put himself in that situation since the cost wasn't much
different. between manufacturers of similar cards for the simple reason that
the manufacturers had to compete for your business. Sure, some vendors
"locked you in" with their odd-ball hardware/software combinations, but you
didn't have to fall into that trap.
When you opened the box with your COCO, what useful work would it do with the
$399 you had just spent? Could you write a letter? Could you write and
compile a Fortran program? Could you save your work in any meaningful way?
Given that you had a printer, could you attach it and use it? What software
was there, that you could install and use? How and where would you install
it? When you finally decided you had to build your own hardware and write
your own software, wouldn't it have been easier to use a wirewrap card and a
CPU chip and start from scratch rather than having to work around all that
stupid, Stupid, STUPID hardware they used? ... hardware you had to work
around, probably had to disable, before you could do anything sensible? That
certainly was the case if you wanted a reasonable display. That certainly was
the case with the TRS-80. Still, people did it. People paid in cash and
endless evenings and weekends. Now, if they wanted to be amused, making
something into what it was not, that's fine, but if you wanted a computer, the
hardware didn't cost less if you used one of the "toy"-based systems, and
the
software wasn't any more available than if you'd used a "real" computer.
It
probably would have cost less to use an Apple with a 6809 board in it (yes,
there were some of those) than to make a COCO into a comparable computer.
IIRC, RS computers were always priced near the top, while their quality was
near the bottom. For something equal to, say, and Apple][,. I'd say you'd pay
nearly twice what a well-purchased Apple][ would have cost for a RS product of
nearly similar actual capabilities. RS never did build something genuinely
intended for expansion though, did they?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 5:39 AM
Subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
>Open the box. Open the S-100 mainframe. Open the
individual card boxes,
>extract the cards and plug them into the mainframe. Open the carton the in
>which the FDD enclosure traveled. Extract the enclosure, insert the 8"
floppy
>drives. Attach the cables to their respective
sockets, at each end, attach
>power cables, power on the Terminal, power up the S-100 box, Power up the
>FDD's, insert the boot disk, watch the lights bling, ... WHAT? no display?
>... oh yeah... attach the serial cable to the terminal. repeat the
process...
>and 64k CP/M 2.2 is booted. Total elapsed time, 4
weeks of shopping, 1
week
>for shipping, 1.5 hours fiddling with boxes,
cables, enclosures, etc. 45
>seconds to boot the 1st time. ... done... Cost? well, the two Mistubishi
8"
>DSDD drives cost $479 each, the terminal cost
$753, shipped the CCS
hardware,
>including CPU, FDD, 64KB DRAM, 4-additional serial
port card, 4 parallel in
+
>4 parallel out card, mainframe, FD box (the one I
sent you) $1479, I think.
I
don't
remember what the shipping cost was, but that was in '79. Later the
next year I attached an ST-506 drive.
Looking at the above and then looking at how one would expand
a CoCo or any of the early 'home' micros, I fail to see the
difference other than the orientation and placement of the exansion
buses. Both required you to add expansion cards for greater
functionality. One happened to house the cards internally while the
other didn't. You list a total of $3190 for the system above, that's
a far cry from the $599 for the TRS-80 Model I or $399 for the
original CoCo. Another thing to remember is that you list a system
made up primarily of one vendor's cards, that being California
Computer Systems. This made things quite easy, especially concerning
booting CP/M. Take a more typical hobbyist S-100 bus machine though,
with it's mix-and-match selection of S-100 bus boards, and the new
owner will likely have to spend quite a bit more time than 45 seconds
to get it to boot the OS for the first time. Did you have to expand
the CoCo or other 'home' 8bit machines to do useful things? No. Did
you have to spend time expanding most S-100 bus machines in order to
do anything useful? Yes. The higher level of integration coupled
with the much lower price is what opened the market up. Both systems
are 'real' computers, both capable of similar uses, they're just
aimed at different markets.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
12:17 p.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 4915 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020426/d84654d0/at…
26 Apr
26 Apr
1:42 a.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
And thusly Tony Duell spake:
There was one _big_ advantage to Radio Shack machines (at least for me).
You could get documentation. Real documetation with schematics and
pinouts and the like. No hassle -- just walk into the shop and buy the
technical manual off the shelf.
Commodore and Amigas also had the schematics available. I was able to fix
a problem on my Amiga 500 with the help of the schematics. I believe the
chip I replaced was a 74LS which was in between a joystick port and one of the
big custom chips.
Cheers,
Bryan
11:19 a.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 879 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020427/cca4ed30/at…
3:46 a.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
Nobody owns a given thread. I didn't say I did, but I did lament that the
cost-related remarks I made and the references to the timeline seemed to go by
the wayside, when they're what was at the core of my point with respect to
Jeff's remarks about the relative cost of the various systems one could get in
the very early '80's. It's simply been my contention that building a
computer
a
It IS the most important part of the computer, since it's what you saw. The
user interface seems, still, to be the primary issue in deciding on one system
over another for home use. It's like the speakers in your sound system. I
normally tell people to spend at least half their home stereo budget on
speakers, half the remainder on their receiver/amplifier, and the remainder on
signal sources.
That's something I wasn't aware of, though I still maintain that RS really
didn't intend for it to be used for 3rd party hardware. They certainly didn't
provide paths, in general, by means of which one could expand a system beyond
their own designs, which other mfg.'s often (possibly unintentionally) did.
This thread has become shanghaied down a path different that the one I
intended to take.
I am not sure why you feel _you_ should be able to decide how threads
develop here...
from components intended to be a computer was, in fact,
less costly than
building a similarly capable system starting with toys as
components, though
the costs might have been more burdensome since one had to buy the parts more
or less at the same time if one wanted somthing functional after the first
purchase. It doesn't help when people attempt to compare items from different
decades.
>
> My point was that you didn't have to write code when you bought a computer
> that was intended to be used as a computer in order just to get it to run
your
> OS and applications. It didn't take a rocket
scientist to figure out that
you
That certainly applies to all those computers you claim are 'toys'. I
don't think you ever had to write code yourself to get the
computer-manufacturer's disk drive to boot/run the
computer-manufacturer's chosen OS. Certainly not with the Apple ][,
TRS-80 (any version), C64, Pet, etc. You just plugged it all together and
booted.
The Apple][ didn't really need a lot of plugging. It was designed to be a
computer, though its predecessor, the Apple I had signal names on its
schematic that clearly indicated it was intended as a video device more than
as a general purpose computer. That was probably reasonable since everything
had to be slaved to the video refresh timing. The TRS-80 was in the stores
nearly a year before the expansion interface, disk drives, and OS were
available. I don't know what the story on the PET was, as there were no
outlets for them here in the Denver area that kept 'em in stock. They
certainly didn't have an OS or anything of the sort until well after their
market window in the U.S. had closed. AFAIK, their successes were mainly in
the European market. I remember seeing their ads in mags brought back from
Europe, but in the entire time I was looking ad commercial systems, the only
PET I ever saw, in private hands or in the hands of a merchant, was the
original 4K PET with the toy (Chiclet?) keyboard. The C64 doesn't fit in the
same generation with these early machines.
> When you opened the box with your COCO, what useful work would it do with
the
Depends on what you consider useful work :-)
The latter was my point, though in any case, it wasn't included in the $399
bundle. The hardware preceeded any useful application, though it was produced
long after there were microcomputers with plenty of useful software available.
While I've never maintained that the "$399" CoCo was incapable of anything
if
enough equipment was added, it's clear that you can't compare the CoCo as
purchased in, say '82, if it was even available that early, with a low-cost
system, e.g. the Ampro Little Board, costing, I think <$200 (as a kit, of
course) including the OS on floppy disks. It required a serial terminal, of
course, but provided the ability to run anything CP/M. As usual with
5-1/4"-diskette-based systems, there was a media issue, but that could be work
ed out by means of Modem7.
$399 you had just spent? Could you write a
letter? Could you write and
Write a letter? There was a word processor ROM (Color Scripsit Program
Pak) that you could plug in. I have it somewhere. I think it came out not
long after the CoCo itself
> compile a Fortran program? Could you save your work in any meaningful
way?
I know of no home computer that had Fortran in ROM. The CoCo (of course)
had a BASIC interpretter in ROM, so you could type in and run programs
(it came with a fairly good BASIC tutorial manual).
ROM wasn't the issue. The fact that the CoCo would run only software on ROM
puts it in a different category than that of a general purpose computer, which
it only became after the addition of additonal hardware. That, BTW, was my
point.
In 1983, which was the last year in which I purchased any CP/M software, I
had no fewer than 6 different 'C' compilers, 4 Pascal compilers, 2 Fortran
compilers, PL/1, 3-4 BASIC interpreters and compilers, several assemblers, and
a number of cross-assemblers, not to mention many other tools of various
sorts. None of these were on ROM. All were from different vendors and not
just different versions of the same program. There was the popular WordStar
editor/word-processor, Dbase II, SuperCalc, and a pretty wide range of other
"stuff" that one could find useful. I assume there were some such programs
for the CoCo, as there were for a range of others. The Commodore boxes that
had a Z80 inside could run CP/M in one version or another, and, if they had
the appropriate means, e.g. a modem, they could get their software moved to
that system easily enough. Ultimately, IIRC, one could even buy CP/M
distribution media for the Commodores, which suggests they became pretty
popular.
Unfortunately, by the time you could buy a complete, OS-9-ready CoCo system,
I'd bet you could by an MS-DOS capable system for about the same money and,
likewise, for the Commodores. If you didn't mind plugging things together,
you could buy a Ferguson Big Board in '80-81 (?) maybe '82, for about $299 and
hook it up to your own 8" drives. By that time the drives were pretty cheap
(not as cheap as today's 3-1/2" drives, of course) and the enclosures
weren't
badly priced. It came with the OS and didn't require a terminal. You'd hook
it up to a keyboard and a modified TV or one with a video input, just as you
might with any of the video-game-based computers.
For saving, you had the cassette port. It worked pretty well in my
experience (you could load the stuff back in again :-)). Yes it was slow,
but it worked.
Look, nobody is disputing there were better computers around at the time.
The CoCo was what, 1980? If you were rich enough you could buy a VAX :-).
But these home computers were cheap enough that people could actually
afford them and use them. IIRC, a 5.25" floppy drive cost a couple of
hundred dollars at that time (at least). So it's hardly suprising that
few home computers included them as standard.
ISTM that your monthly power bill for a VAX would have exceeded the cost of a
current microcomputer of the early '80's. They didn't have the microVax yet.
> Given that you had a printer, could you attach it and use it? What
software
The serial port was intended to be used as a printer port. For some
reason it ran at 600 baud by default, but.... I suppose you believe that
all printers have a parallel interface? I do not!
The serial printers of the time seemed to work fine at low baud rates since
they were most often the daisywheel types. Those cost WAY more than a person
wishing to save money on a $399 CoCo would have wanted to pay.
> was there, that you could install and use? How and where would you
install
it? When you
finally decided you had to build your own hardware and write
There was a fair amount of software available on ROM cartridges (aka
Program Paks). You just plugged them into the slot on the right hand side
of the machine.
> your own software, wouldn't it have been easier to use a wirewrap card and
CPU chip and
start from scratch rather than having to work around all that
stupid, Stupid, STUPID hardware they used? ... hardware you had to work
Actually, the CoCo hardware was pretty nice, apart from the display (you
seem to regard this as being the most important part of a computer, I do
not). The hardware did _not_ generally get in the way of homebrew add-ons
(I speak from a lot of experience here, I've built all sorts of add-ons
for the CoCo).
There was one big advantage to starting from a home computer rather than
just a CPU chip. You had a 'base system' that included enough software to
PEEK/POKE bytes to your homebrew add-on for testing. That alone made life
a lot easier when you were starting out.
If you were smart enough to build anything at all. you were smart enough to
get a monitor program for some other system and build your hardware so it
could execute that monitor. You had to start with something. True, a
resident ROM was handy, provided you could make it go away.
> hardware didn't cost less if you used one of the "toy"-based systems,
and
the
> software wasn't any more available than if
you'd used a "real" computer.
It
> probably would have cost less to use an Apple
with a 6809 board in it
(yes,
I am well aware of the Apple 6809 board. I have one somewhere....
> there were some of those) than to make a COCO into a comparable computer.
> IIRC, RS computers were always priced near the top, while their quality
was
> near the bottom. For something equal to, say,
and Apple][,. I'd say you'd
pay
Odd... I've owned at least half a dozen TRS-80s. I've had very little
trouble with any of them. Unlike my Apple ][s which seem to be very
marginally designed....
Yes, the Apples were marginally designed, and, I would suspect, continue to
be.
There was one _big_ advantage to Radio Shack machines (at least for me).
You could get documentation. Real documentation with schematics and
pinouts and the like. No hassle -- just walk into the shop and buy the
technical manual off the shelf.
True, not to mention that, back then, (1980) they were the only computer maker
with a world-wide retail/service/distribution network.
> nearly twice what a well-purchased Apple][ would have cost for a RS
product
of
> nearly similar actual capabilities. RS never did
build something
genuinely
intended for
expansion though, did they?
Well, I guess the Multi-Pak was designed to have 4 cartridges plugged in
at once so you didn't have to keep on unpluging them when you wanted to
change programs. But I can assure you that most of them were used as
expansion backplanes so as to have the disk controller, serial port and a
couple of other hardware add-ons plugged in at the same time.
4:54 a.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
Richard Erlacher wrote:
The Apple][ didn't really need a lot of plugging.
It was designed to be a
computer, though its predecessor, the Apple I had signal names on its
schematic that clearly indicated it was intended as a video device more than
as a general purpose computer. That was probably reasonable since everything
had to be slaved to the video refresh timing. The TRS-80 was in the stores
nearly a year before the expansion interface, disk drives, and OS were
available. I don't know what the story on the PET was, as there were no
outlets for them here in the Denver area that kept 'em in stock. They
certainly didn't have an OS or anything of the sort until well after their
market window in the U.S. had closed. AFAIK, their successes were mainly in
the European market. I remember seeing their ads in mags brought back from
Europe, but in the entire time I was looking ad commercial systems, the only
PET I ever saw, in private hands or in the hands of a merchant, was the
original 4K PET with the toy (Chiclet?) keyboard. The C64 doesn't fit in the
same generation with these early machines.
Well Cassette I/O and TV video out and a cheap keyboard with BASIC
is what I call a 'Toy/Games' computer. Any computer with less than 48k
of
memory I consider a control computer from that era of computing.
Note the price of game consoles have stayed about the same $299-$399
and real computers $899-$1299. (Canadian)
The serial printers of the time seemed to work fine at
low baud rates since
they were most often the daisywheel types. Those cost WAY more than a person
wishing to save money on a $399 CoCo would have wanted to pay.
The only printers
for the coco really was the RS ones and really crappy
at that too!
It IS the most important part of the computer, since
it's what you saw. The
user interface seems, still, to be the primary issue in deciding on one system
over another for home use. It's like the speakers in your sound system. I
normally tell people to spend at least half their home stereo budget on
speakers, half the remainder on their receiver/amplifier, and the remainder on
signal sources.
What no $$$ for the tubes ???
Good way to buy a sound system.
True, not to mention that, back then, (1980) they were
the only computer maker
with a world-wide retail/service/distribution network.
Often the only store that
sold computerrs in a small town!
That's something I wasn't aware of, though I
still maintain that RS really
didn't intend for it to be used for 3rd party hardware. They certainly didn't
provide paths, in general, by means of which one could expand a system beyond
their own designs, which other mfg.'s often (possibly unintentionally) did.
That is true of 99% of all the computer systems. With the PC it really
only took
off once the clones came in. In hindsight nobody other than OS/9 systems
really
produced a good computer system in the 1980's.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
5:53 a.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
The only printers for the coco really was the RS ones
and really crappy
at that too!
ANY "RS-232" printer that was switchable to "AUTO LF" would work just
fine.
And, with a serial/parallel converter (reaily available, and which quite a
few people here are capable of building), parallel "centronics" printers
worked.
I used a Coco with DTC-300 (HiType I daisy wheel, with 4004 processor),
Centronics 101 (weighed 4 zillion times what the computer did), silly
radio shack pen plotter/printer, Epson MX-100, and HP Laserjet! Which of
those is the crappiest?
Often the only store that sold computerrs in a small
town!
And credited with being the reason for the flourishing mail-order
business.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
7:26 p.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
I don't think I ever actually saw a diskless Apple][. They must have existed,
because, as you've pointed out, they have that cassette port.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
since
The
maker
didn't
Richard Erlacher wrote:
> The Apple][ didn't really need a lot of plugging. It was designed to be a
> computer, though its predecessor, the Apple I had signal names on its
> schematic that clearly indicated it was intended as a video device more
than
> as a general purpose computer. That was probably
reasonable since
everything
> had to be slaved to the video refresh timing.
The TRS-80 was in the
stores
> nearly a year before the expansion interface,
disk drives, and OS were
> available. I don't know what the story on the PET was, as there were no
> outlets for them here in the Denver area that kept 'em in stock. They
> certainly didn't have an OS or anything of the sort until well after their
> market window in the U.S. had closed. AFAIK, their successes were mainly
in
> the European market. I remember seeing their ads
in mags brought back
from
> Europe, but in the entire time I was looking ad
commercial systems, the
only
> PET I ever saw, in private hands or in the hands
of a merchant, was the
> original 4K PET with the toy (Chiclet?) keyboard. The C64 doesn't fit in
the
same
generation with these early machines.
Well Cassette I/O and TV video out and a cheap keyboard with BASIC
is what I call a 'Toy/Games' computer. Any computer with less than 48k
of
memory I consider a control computer from that era of computing.
Note the price of game consoles have stayed about the same $299-$399
and real computers $899-$1299. (Canadian)
> The serial printers of the time seemed to work fine at low baud rates > they were most often the daisywheel types. Those
cost WAY more than a
person
wishing to
save money on a $399 CoCo would have wanted to pay.
The only printers for the coco
really was the RS ones and really crappy
at that too!
> It IS the most important part of the computer, since it's what you saw.
> user interface seems, still, to be the primary
issue in deciding on one
system
> over another for home use. It's like the
speakers in your sound system.
I
> normally tell people to spend at least half their
home stereo budget on
> speakers, half the remainder on their receiver/amplifier, and the
remainder
on
signal
sources.
What no $$$ for the tubes ???
Good way to buy a sound system.
> True, not to mention that, back then, (1980) they were the only computer
with a
world-wide retail/service/distribution network.
Often the only store that sold
computerrs in a small town!
> That's something I wasn't aware of, though I still maintain that RS really
> didn't intend for it to be used for 3rd party hardware. They certainly
> provide paths, in general, by means of which one
could expand a system
beyond
> their own designs, which other mfg.'s often
(possibly unintentionally)
did.
That is true of 99% of all the computer systems. With
the PC it really
only took
off once the clones came in. In hindsight nobody other than OS/9 systems
really
produced a good computer system in the 1980's.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
11:55 a.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 11305 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020427/f10969ba/at…
1:51 p.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Tony Duell wrote:
I really can't see why you claim the Apple ][ was
designed as a computer
and the TRS-80 (say) was not. . . .
I can't see much difference between those 2 upgrades...
Maybe because the TRS-80 drive had its own power cord?
4:52 p.m.
New subject: Device driver support for various older OSes like OS-9 and AmigaOS
It was thus said that the Great Tony Duell once stated:
It sounds as though you
[I think he's refering to Richard Erlacher here. -spc]
are moaning that the CoCo was not a CP/M machine.
Well, of course it wasn't. It used a 6809 processor. If you wanted a CP/M
machine, then fine, buy one. But OS-9 was a much nicer OS than CP/M (I've
used both seriously...) OS-9 felt more like unix (yes, I know it was very
different internally). And the I/O system was nothing short of beautiful
(I wish it was as easy to write device drivers for other OSes).
AmigaOS may come close. Under AmigaOS, device drivers are, more or less,
shared libraries that must support a few more standard calls (IO related
calls) than normal shared libraries (that only need to support something
like to or three routines that all shared libraries need to support) and
handle IO messages.
That's it.
Very clean interface. And looking over my OS-9 documentation, it seems
very similar (well, OS-9 doesn't support message queues like AmigaOS does,
but otherwise, it looks like device drivers are just like any other module
under OS-9, except for support for a set of standard calls).
I'm not all that happy with the way Unix (and in particular Linux) handles
devices, especially devices that are easily removable, like printers,
modems, ttys, floppy disks and CD-ROMS, and the internal interface, and the
fact that you have to compile drivers into the kernel [1] and ... well ...
there's a lot I don't like about Unix.
-spc (Still better than some of what's out there ... )
[1] I know, Linux supports demand loading of device drivers, but it
still is very ugly, not clean, and *so* kernel dependent that a
device driver module compiled under 2.0.13 may, quite possibly, load
under 2.0.39, it probably won't under 2.1.x and forget about 2.2.0
or higher. And because so much of the kernel is exposed through the
module interface (heck, the *entire* kernel is exposed) that there
exist modules that will hide files, processes, network connections
and even themselves so even enabling module support on a server is a
security risk.
MS-DOS, Windows and OS/2's ability to load device drivers at boot
time is slightly better, but still annoying if you have a piece of
hardware that only periodically needs support (say, a tape device
driver for backups only). And there's a better documented interface
for kernel->module interaction (at least in MS-DOS, I'm not sure
about Windows or OS/2).
I *still* like the Amiga and OS-9 method better, but yes, in a
multiuser system would need a decent access control method (much
better than what you get under Unix) to handle user loadable (or
runtime loadable) device drivers.
6:03 p.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
That's not exactly what I said, though it may have seemed that way. What I
said was that the basic unit wasn't much more than a toy, since the EI and
disk drives didn't come out until some time after the TRS-80 became avaiable.
The Radio Shack experience was pretty much the first one of its kind, i.e.
they put out what they thought met their "most likely to sell" criteria,
though they were pretty wrong about the concept in several respects, all
associated with packaging. They figure that out and fixed most of the
problems in the Model 3. They didn't fix all the problems, of course, such as
that inane display format and the slow cpu, but, they got the packaging
somewhat better.
more below.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
I really can't see why you claim the Apple ][ was designed as a computer
and the TRS-80 (say) was not.
The obvious distinction is in that the Apple ][ was intended to be expanded
with cards you could buy. Like the other "toy" vendors, which came along
somewhat later, RS figured you should buy expansion hardware exclusively from
them, so they didn't provide a generalized expansion interface, but, rather,
just the memory and limited I/O expansion they thought appropriate. This
follows the same model as the later "toy" makers, but the TRS-80, based on
their advertising and other features, didn't intend the majority of their
users to be gamesters, exclusively. Most notably, this is illustrated by
their inclusion of the ROM basic.
I don't think so, but it wasn't long after the ][ came out. Most of the
]['s
I saw were actually ][+'s.
with
Well, if you bought a new terminal, it meant an outlay by 1983 of somewhere on
the order of $550. If you got one second-hand, $100 might do it. If you
wanted to use a modified TV-set, Digital Research of Texas (Ferguson) (the
guys who sold the BigBoard) sold a ~6"x8" board that allowed you to do that,
and you had to provide a parallel-interfaced keyboard. Those were pretty
cheap too, certainly more so than today. Frankly, I suspect the BigBoard was
a better buy if you intended to use a TV and a keyboard, since the display
circuit was already on the board. What's more, it worked with 8" drives,
which were, after all, the CP/M standard, so there's another option.
that
True, but it's got to tell what the outcome of your processing task was.
removing the CPU and using switches to set the addresses was an easy enough
way to check whether a CPU communicated properly with an I/O decoder and the
downstream hardware. It wasn't instantaneous, but it didn't take long to set
8 addresses. I could have taken the thing to work and used the 'scopes and
other lab equipment, but I got it working without them. Later on, I was
occasionally seen to bring my computer to work so I could use it there as a
tool to stimulate or monitor other hardware.
I guess I consider it pretty simple because that's how I got my first computer
working. I took a memory map from an existing architecture and, because I was
too impatient to wait for boards to become avaiable, I built my own from
wirewrap materials. It took a weekend and, when I was done, it worked. I'd
built a small box, about 6" tall with a small SONY TV-set in it and a PSU in
it, and mounted a 12-slot passive backplane in the thing, and away we went.
I'd picked an architecture for which software and hardware already existed, so
I could replicate what I needed and steal the driver and application software.
That was before disk drives were cheap, so it used an audio cassette for
storing and retrieving data. It didn't take me long to tire of that.
I was hoping to avoid that ...
> > That certainly applies to all those
computers you claim are 'toys'. I
> > don't think you ever had to write code yourself to get the
> > computer-manufacturer's disk drive to boot/run the
> > computer-manufacturer's chosen OS. Certainly not with the Apple ][,
> > TRS-80 (any version), C64, Pet, etc. You just plugged it all together
and
booted.
The Apple][ didn't really need a lot of plugging. It was designed to be a
computer, though its predecessor, the Apple I had signal names on its
FWIW, to add a disk drive to the Apple ][, you :
Plugged the disk drive cable into the disk interface card.
Pulled the top off the apple, plugged the disk interface card into an
expansion slot, put the top back on.
Put the DOS disk in the drive and turned on the Apple.
To add a disk drive to the CoCo, you :
Plugged the disk drive cable into the disk interface cartridge
Plugged the cartridge into the side of the CoCo.
Turned on the machine (the OS -- really extensions to BASIC to allow you
to load/save programs and data, format disks, etc -- was in a ROM in the
cartridge so you didn't need a boot disk).
If you wanted to run OS-9 you stuck the disk into the drive and typed
'DOS' (IIRC).
I can't see much difference between those 2 upgrades...
one difference between the two "models" that were followed was that the
Coco
became avaiable quite some time before any expansion hardware was available.
This follows the same model as the Commodore machines and a few others, whose
vendors seemingly figured they'd sell the main box to raise money to fund the
development of the expansion hardware if there was going to be any. In many
cases, this was a great favor to the purchasers, since they immediately could
begin to see what they'd bought. If it was useful to them, they stuck with
it, if not, well, instead of having a couple of k-bucks invested, they only
had a few hundred and could move on to something that they liked better.
> schematic that clearly indicated it was intended as a video device more
than
> as a general purpose computer. That was probably
reasonable since
everything
> had to be slaved to the video refresh timing.
The TRS-80 was in the
stores
nearly a year
before the expansion interface, disk drives, and OS were
Was the Disk II avaiable as soon as the Apple ][ was released? (I don't
know the answer, Sellam?)
available. I don't know what the story on
the PET was, as there were no
outlets for them here in the Denver area that kept 'em in stock. They
IIRC, the very first version of PET BASIC had a bug in it which meant the
only mass storage you could use was the cassette recorder.
> > > When you opened the box with your COCO, what useful work would it do
> the
> >
> > Depends on what you consider useful work :-)
> >
> > > $399 you had just spent? Could you write a letter? Could you write
and
> >
> > Write a letter? There was a word processor ROM (Color Scripsit Program
> > Pak) that you could plug in. I have it somewhere. I think it came out
not
> > long after the CoCo itself
> >
> The latter was my point, though in any case, it wasn't included in the
$399
> bundle. The hardware preceeded any useful
application, though it was
produced
Apart from pre-packaged business systems, very few micros came with word
processing software. It was always an optional extra.
Yes, but if, by way of comparison, you bought an Ampro "Little Board"
which
only preceeded the CoCo by a few months (?), you had your choice of several,
aside from the line-editor that came with the OS, which was included with the
Little Board. I don't remember what inexpensive 2-sided 5-1/4" drives cost in
'83, but I do remember that the Ampro could use the already-available
distribution disk format of the Kaypro and Osborne machines, though it wasn't
native to Ampro.
> long after there were microcomputers with plenty of useful software
available.
> While I've never maintained that the
"$399" CoCo was incapable of anything
if
> enough equipment was added, it's clear that
you can't compare the CoCo as
> purchased in, say '82, if it was even available that early, with a
low-cost
> system, e.g. the Ampro Little Board, costing, I
think <$200 (as a kit, of
> course) including the OS on floppy disks. It required a serial terminal,
of
> course, but provided the ability to run anything
CP/M. As usual with
> 5-1/4"-diskette-based systems, there was a media issue, but that could be
work
ed out by
means of Modem7.
So, you needed to buy the Little Board, a serial terminal, at least one
disk drive (I can't believe $200 included the drive), and probably a PSU
and a case. And then get it all working. Fine if you knew what you were
doing. Not so good if you were starting out.
And presumably using Modem7 to transfer programs from 8" disks (the
_only_ standard CP/M format) to the Little Board implied you had another
CP/M computer with 8" drives. You know, this is starting to sound expensive.
> >
> > > compile a Fortran program? Could you save your work in any meaningful
> way?
> >
> > I know of no home computer that had Fortran in ROM. The CoCo (of course)
> > had a BASIC interpretter in ROM, so you could type in and run programs
> > (it came with a fairly good BASIC tutorial manual).
> >
> ROM wasn't the issue. The fact that the CoCo would run only software on
ROM
You clearly don't know much about the CoCo.
The CoCo could run software from RAM (of course). In fact it was one of
the few micros at that time which had both BASIC in ROM and the ability
to 'turn off' the ROM and have a memory map that was almost entirely RAM
(the only exception being the I/O devices). Most machines had either
BASIC In ROM that was always there (and which got in the way if you
wanted to run a real OS), or just had a little boot ROM (which was often
'turned off' after the OS had been booted), but which therefore needed a
disk drive to work at all.
There was a fair amount of CoCo software sold on ROM Paks because they
were quicker to load than cassette tapes (they were also harder to
pirate...). But you certainly could run software loaded from tape (I have
a few CoCo games that were sold on cassette).
My recollection of the CoCo, quite limited for sure, since it wasn't very
widely popular around here, but one of my colleagues had one, suggests that
the appearance of runnable code for the CoCo was not contemporaneous with its
introduction. My recollection is that there wasn't much available in terms of
expansion hardware or ROM software until the CoCo was no longer particularly
important on the market, not that it ever was. However, the PC came down in
price to where one could have a complete PC/XT clone for well under $1k by
1985, which badly hurt the makers of machines like the CoCo, etc.
> puts it in a different category than that of a general purpose computer,
which
> it only became after the addition of additonal
hardware. That, BTW, was
my
> point.
>
> In 1983, which was the last year in which I purchased any CP/M software,
I
> had no fewer than 6 different 'C'
compilers, 4 Pascal compilers, 2 Fortran
> compilers, PL/1, 3-4 BASIC interpreters and compilers, several assemblers,
and
> a number of cross-assemblers, not to mention many
other tools of various
> sorts. None of these were on ROM. All were from different vendors and
not
So? The CoCo had plenty of software available if you added a disk drive
an OS-9. Presumably all the software you mentioned also needed at least
one disk drive.
Yes, but when?
It sounds as though you are moaning that the CoCo was not a CP/M machine.
Well, of course it wasn't. It used a 6809 processor. If you wanted a CP/M
machine, then fine, buy one. But OS-9 was a much nicer OS than CP/M (I've
used both seriously...) OS-9 felt more like unix (yes, I know it was very
different internally). And the I/O system was nothing short of beautiful
(I wish it was as easy to write device drivers for other OSes). If you
added a piece of homebrew hardware to the CoCo (let's say a parallel
printer interface), then you could write a device driver in a few lines
of assembly code, assemble it, load the resulting 'module' at the command
prompt and have the device available to all programs on the system. Now
of course you don't like unix (and prefer MS-DOS) which might explain why
you also prefer CP/M to OS-9
> Unfortunately, by the time you could buy a complete, OS-9-ready CoCo
system,
> I'd bet you could by an MS-DOS capable system
for about the same money
and,
You probably could. But I actually chose a CoCo 3 system over a PC-clone
for a birthday present one year. And I have _never_ regretted it.
> > The serial port was intended to be used as a printer port. For some
> > reason it ran at 600 baud by default, but.... I suppose you believe that
> > all printers have a parallel interface? I do not!
> >
> The serial printers of the time seemed to work fine at low baud rates
since
> they were most often the daisywheel types. Those
cost WAY more than a
person
wishing to
save money on a $399 CoCo would have wanted to pay.
There were plenty of cheap-ish serial dot matrix printers around at the
time, too.
> > > CPU chip and start from scratch rather than having to work around all
> > > stupid, Stupid, STUPID hardware they
used? ... hardware you had to
work
> >
> > Actually, the CoCo hardware was pretty nice, apart from the display (you
> > seem to regard this as being the most important part of a computer, I do
> > not). The hardware did _not_ generally get in the way of homebrew
add-ons
> > (I speak from a lot of experience here,
I've built all sorts of add-ons
> > for the CoCo).
> >
> It IS the most important part of the computer, since it's what you saw.
The
Sorry, I have to disagree with you there. Many of my computers don't even
have any form of video output. The think I look for when choosing a
computer is the _processor_ and _OS_.
I've long (very long) considered a display of fewer than 24 lines of 80
characters pretty useless. True, 80 column lines in pages of 24 date back to
the U.S. military "coding forms" developed in the U.S. Navy and later
proliferated throughout the industry. It seemed to me to be one of a very few
things the military got right.
> user interface seems, still, to be the primary issue in deciding on one
system
> over another for home use. It's like the
speakers in your sound system.
I
> normally tell people to spend at least half their
home stereo budget on
> speakers, half the remainder on their receiver/amplifier, and the
remainder
on
signal
sources.
Seems reasonable. But that's because the purpose of a Hi-Fi system is to
produce sound with minimal distortion, and most of the distortion comes
from the speakers. The purpose of a computer is not just to output video.
It's to do processing as well.
> >
> > There was one big advantage to starting from a home computer rather than
> > just a CPU chip. You had a 'base system' that included enough software
to
> > PEEK/POKE bytes to your homebrew add-on for
testing. That alone made
life
> > a lot easier when you were starting out.
> >
> If you were smart enough to build anything at all. you were smart enough
to
get a monitor
program for some other system and build your hardware so it
could execute that monitor. You had to start with something. True, a
Well, if you're just starting out you have to get a lot right just to run
that monitor. All the bus connections correctly wired and no shorts. CPU
clock running. Memory map as you (and the monitor ROM) expect it. ROM
correctly programmed. I/O devices where the monitor expects them. And so on.
None of this is impossible, or even that difficult. But for a first time
project there's a lot that can go wrong, and you might well then not know
how to look for the problem. If you started with a CoCo (or whatever) you
had a base machine that would work. If your device stopped the machine
from even starting up it was a fair bet you'd got a short between 2 bus
lines. If it didn't repsond to the right addresses, you'd mis-designed
the address decoder. And so on. It was a lot easier to get your first
hardware project working that way.
resident ROM was handy, provided you could make
it go away.
You could. Look at the SAM data sheet.
> > Well, I guess the Multi-Pak was designed to have 4 cartridges plugged in
> > at once so you didn't have to keep on unpluging them when you wanted to
> > change programs. But I can assure you that most of them were used as
> > expansion backplanes so as to have the disk controller, serial port and
a
> > couple of other hardware add-ons plugged in
at the same time.
> >
> That's something I wasn't aware of, though I still maintain that RS really
> didn't intend for it to be used for 3rd party hardware. They certainly
didn't
At least in the UK you could buy 'off the rack' in the local Tandy shops
(Radio Shack Stores :-)) prototyping boards to fit the CoCo cartridge
port (basically a PCB with a gold plated edge connector at one end,
power/ground distribution and pads to fit standard DIL packages) along
with plastic boxes to take that board and fit nicely into the CoCo or
MultiPak. So it appears they _did_ expect you to do some homebrewing.
Homebrewing fit their business model at the time, but, aside from the fact the
IBM PC was taking over the world of microcomputing, there still wasn't much
interest in 8-bitters that took up a whole table top. The last major trend in
CP/M computers, for example, was typified in the move from
box+terminal+drive_box+hard_drive_ box to luggables such as the Kaypro,
Osborne, and Otrona. In '84 I had a pretty big system at the house, but
hauled a modesltly proportioned barebones system based on the Ampro with me
wherever I went, and it had a hard disk and a floppy, along with an integrated
display (using the small Ferguson Engineering terminal board) all crammed into
a box about as large as an Otrona. It didn't have a handle or an attachment
for the keyboard, both of which would have been convenient. I doubt much of
their competitors' hardware was available in the Radio Shack.
One of my client companies sold an OS for the TRS-80, called NewDOS-80. I
doubt it pleased the RS guys to have people ask for it in their stores.
27 Apr
27 Apr
9:18 a.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 8073 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020427/86c6ae1c/at…
28 Apr
28 Apr
3:23 a.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
Yes, the enhancements that finally found their way into to the Model 4 were
available from third parties (with the possible exception of the display
format and speedup) for the Model I. We offered our own versions in a design
alternative done under contract to Tandy as a Model 3 design, in the very late
'70's, but it cost them $5 per unit more than the lowest-cost alternative, so
they rejected it. They paid for the work but didn't use it.
It's too bad it took them so long to realize that having two operating systems
available rather than just one would help their sales rather than hurting
them, and that a conventional display made a lot of sense, and that having the
slowest computer on the market might be hurting their competitive position.
By the time the M4 came out, most of the Z80 systems people wanted were
running in the 6-8 MHz range and cost considerably less than the M4. Tandy
management was just not able to keep pace.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
expanded
from
even
Which, depending on the task could be done using a row of LEDs, a 7
segment display, a printing terminal, or....
> > Well, if you're just starting out you have to get a lot right just to
run
> said was that the basic unit wasn't much more
than a toy, since the EI and
> disk drives didn't come out until some time after the TRS-80 became
avaiable.
> The Radio Shack experience was pretty much the
first one of its kind, i.e.
> they put out what they thought met their "most likely to sell" criteria,
> though they were pretty wrong about the concept in several respects, all
> associated with packaging. They figure that out and fixed most of the
> problems in the Model 3. They didn't fix all the problems, of course,
such as
that inane
display format and the slow cpu, but, they got the packaging
somewhat better.
The Model 4 did fix the display format (80*24), the CPU speed (IIRC it
could run the CPU at 4MHz) and it even let you switch out the ROMs to
have a 'RAM-only' memory map to run CP/M. Of course it was rather too late.
Actaully I prefered display dimensions being nice round numbers like 16
and 64. I could never really understand the reasoning behind 80*24
(except that it was a 'standard').
> > I really can't see why you claim the Apple ][ was designed as a computer
> > and the TRS-80 (say) was not.
> >
> The obvious distinction is in that the Apple ][ was intended to be with cards you
could buy. Like the other "toy" vendors, which came along
Err, and the CoCo (which is the TRS-80 which started this discussion --
please don't arbitrarly move to a different machine!) was intended to be
expanded by cartridges you could buy (like the disk controller, RS232,
speech/sound, etc).
> somewhat later, RS figured you should buy expansion hardware exclusively > them, so they didn't provide a generalized
expansion interface, but,
rather,
Eh? the CoCo expansion slot was the 6809 bus. Like the Apple slots were
the 6502 bus. Both machines had a slot pinout, etc, that was designed for
that machine, and both manufacturers would probably have liked it if
you'd bought all your add-ons from them. But none-the-less both
manufacturers did tell you the pinout and signal specs so you (or any 3rd
party company) could make add-ons if you wanted to.
I really can't see the difference between the CoCo and Apple ][ in this
respect.
> > Apart from pre-packaged business systems, very few micros came with word
> > processing software. It was always an optional extra.
> >
> Yes, but if, by way of comparison, you bought an Ampro "Little Board"
which
> only preceeded the CoCo by a few months (?), you
had your choice of
several,
Sure, but none of them were free (AFAIK). Wordstar was not cheap back
then...
And the CoCo did have software available essentially when it came out
(or at least _very_ shortly afterwards). And it wasn;t that expensive
either.
> > So, you needed to buy the Little Board, a serial terminal, at least one
> > disk drive (I can't believe $200 included the drive), and probably a PSU
> > and a case. And then get it all working. Fine if you knew what you were
> > doing. Not so good if you were starting out.
> >
> > And presumably using Modem7 to transfer programs from 8" disks (the
> > _only_ standard CP/M format) to the Little Board implied you had another
> > CP/M computer with 8" drives. You know, this is starting to sound
expensive.
> >
> Well, if you bought a new terminal, it meant an outlay by 1983 of
somewhere
on
the order of
$550. If you got one second-hand, $100 might do it. If you
Exactly. Rather more than a CoCo.
In other words, if you had the money there were better machines than the
CoCo. Nobody disputes that. But I would guess that getting a Little Board
system up and running using entirely new parts (Little Board, Terminal,
Drives, Case, PSU, etc) would cost around $1000. The CoCo was under half
that. Yes, by the time you'd added drives, monitor (rather than using
your existing TV), etc to the CoCo you'd probably spent as much. But you
could spend the money a bit at a time and have something that was useful
along the way. And of course in the end you did have a multi-tasking
computer with a much nicer processor than the Z80.
> >
> > Sorry, I have to disagree with you there. Many of my computers don't
> > have any form of video output. The think I
look for when choosing a
> > computer is the _processor_ and _OS_.
> >
> I've long (very long) considered a display of fewer than 24 lines of 80
> characters pretty useless. True, 80 column lines in pages of 24 date back
to
As I said, having used many systems with less video capability than that
for real work, I can't agree with you.
> > Seems reasonable. But that's because the purpose of a Hi-Fi system is to
> > produce sound with minimal distortion, and most of the distortion comes
> > from the speakers. The purpose of a computer is not just to output
video.
It's to do processing as well.
True, but it's got to tell what the outcome of your processing task was.
> > that monitor. All the bus connections
correctly wired and no shorts. CPU
> > clock running. Memory map as you (and the monitor ROM) expect it. ROM
> > correctly programmed. I/O devices where the monitor expects them. And so
on.
> >
> > None of this is impossible, or even that difficult. But for a first time
> > project there's a lot that can go wrong, and you might well then not
know
> > how to look for the problem. If you started
with a CoCo (or whatever)
you
> > had a base machine that would work. If your
device stopped the machine
> > from even starting up it was a fair bet you'd got a short between 2 bus
> > lines. If it didn't repsond to the right addresses, you'd mis-designed
> > the address decoder. And so on. It was a lot easier to get your first
> > hardware project working that way.
> >
> removing the CPU and using switches to set the addresses was an easy
enough
> way to check whether a CPU communicated properly
with an I/O decoder and
the
Oh, sure... I've done that many times. That's not the point...
When you know what you are doing, there are plenty of ways of
fault-tracing using minimal equipment. But when you're starting out you
probably don't have the ability to work out things like that. Having
something to start from that you know works is a big step forward. Or at
least it was to me.
This was one thing that was so nice about the BBC micro. It had an 8 bit
user port (half a 6522) and a 4 channel ADC built in. Now, we both know
how easy it is to link up a 6522 or an ADC chip to the 6502 bus. But I
can assue you that the fact that these interfaces were built-in on the
Beeb enocouraged a lot of users to link up relays and simple sensors,
etc. And to actually try some interface. They probably wouldn't have
bothered if they'd had to wire up the interface chip themselves first.
And they certainly wouldn't have tried making a computer from scratch.
> I guess I consider it pretty simple because that's how I got my first
computer
> working. I took a memory map from an existing
architecture and, because I
was
Actually, I debugged my first homebrew like that as well. And used an LED
+ resistor to monitor bus signals. From the brightness of the LED I could
estimate the mark-space ratio of the signal (and certainly spot lines
that were always high or low).
I am not saying it can't be done. Just that few beginners are going to do
it.
Another data point. Look at all the projects on the internet that connect
to a PC printer port. Now, making an ISA card is almost trivial, and in
some cases it's actually more work to kludge the interface onto the
printer port than to make a special ISA card for it. But none the less,
people prefer to just plug into an external connector on an existing
computer.
I was hoping to avoid that ...
I see, you (as usual) can't be bothered with facts....
-tony
resident ROM was handy, provided you could make it go
away.
You could. Look at the SAM data sheet.
4 May
4 May
7:03 a.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Tony Duell wrote:
Was the Disk II avaiable as soon as the Apple ][ was
released? (I don't
know the answer, Sellam?)
I'm sure this has been answered by now but no. I believe it was first
available in 1978 or thereabouts.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
25 Apr
25 Apr
1:02 p.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
This thread has become shanghaied down a path different
that the one I
intended to take.
Likely due to too broad of a blanket statement concerning
what constitutes a computer. A few machines that I do feel fall more
into the realm of 'toys' vice true computers, mainly due to their
total lack of built-in I/O interfaces are extremely lowcost systems
such as the ZX-81 and the Aquarius. Both have bus extensions but the
only built-in I/O they have is their video out and cassette
interfaces. The ZX-81 takes another step back by not even offering
program loading by way of ROM cartridges, which the Aquarius does but
by the time the Aquarius was released it was well behind everything
else out there. There's certainly no disputing the impact that
machines such as those from Sinclair had as far as introducing people
to computers through their availability though.
My point was that you didn't have to write code
when you bought a computer
that was intended to be used as a computer in order just to get it to run your
OS and applications.
Personally, I consider the SS-50 bus boxes to be some of the
better designs as far as being able to start using the machine with
minimum fuss or additional requirements. As early as 1976 they
included a ROM monitor, from Motorolla, and enough I/O to connect a
serial terminal.
When you opened the box with your COCO, what useful
work would it do with the
$399 you had just spent? Could you write a letter? Could you write and
compile a Fortran program? Could you save your work in any meaningful way?
Given that you had a printer, could you attach it and use it? What software
was there, that you could install and use? How and where would you install
it?
A base CoCo, without any type of expansion, could run
non-game applications such as the following:
- Audio Spectrum Analyzer (real time waveform display of audio input)
- Color Scripsit for the Color Computer (word processing program)
- Typing Tutor
- Videotex
There are plenty more but these are the ones that I own that
I can think of off the top of my head. All are in cartridge format
so they don't require a disk drive. Of course, there's always the
internal BASIC. Without that addition of the disk drive, you could
always use the cassette interface. There was even a version of the
CoCo1 that was sold as a terminal with the Videotex software in it's
ROM vice BASIC.
nearly similar actual capabilities. RS never did build
something genuinely
intended for expansion though, did they?
Yes, RS liked to do odd things so that you couldn't expand
thier systems. They didn't do it to all of their systems though.
Except for the console cased 1000EX/HX, most of the 1000 series are
pretty expandable, nearly equal to any other XT-clone as long as you
knew some of the odd quirks to watch out for. The Model 2000 has 4
16bit expansion slots, though unfortunately few boards were made to
work in it. Others such as the Model III and 4 had minimal expansion
options internal but came standard with cassette, serial, parallel
and external bus extensions. RS was actually one of the earlier
adopters of built-in I/O ports while other micros still required you
to purchase them seperately. Their SL/TL series even had built-in
DAC's for sound input/output about the time the SoundBlaster and
AdLib cards were becoming popular.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
26 Apr
26 Apr
7:38 p.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
your
I don't know why they didn't become more popular, except that I never
encountered anyone who had a complete system built on the SS-50. One thing
that helped interest me in S-100, initially, was that, provided I was running
CP/M, I could buy a vast supply of used floppy diskettes with things like
Wordstar, various compilers, various interpreters, ... you get the idea ...
I'm not sure that was possible for someone using SS-50 hardware. What OS was
popular on that hardware? Which CPU's?
Normally, in '80-'82. if you wanted a game, you went to a toy (or
discount)
store, while, when you wanted a computer, you went to a computer store. You
could tell what you were buying by looking at the sign in front of the store
as you entered. That was not so easy with the Radio Shack, since their niche
was the overlap. As time has passed, the distinction has become less obvious.
This thread has
become shanghaied down a path different that the one I
intended to take.
Likely due to too broad of a blanket statement concerning
what constitutes a computer. A few machines that I do feel fall more
into the realm of 'toys' vice true computers, mainly due to their
total lack of built-in I/O interfaces are extremely lowcost systems
such as the ZX-81 and the Aquarius. Both have bus extensions but the
only built-in I/O they have is their video out and cassette
interfaces. The ZX-81 takes another step back by not even offering
program loading by way of ROM cartridges, which the Aquarius does but
by the time the Aquarius was released it was well behind everything
else out there. There's certainly no disputing the impact that
machines such as those from Sinclair had as far as introducing people
to computers through their availability though.
>My point was that you didn't have to write code when you bought a computer
>that was intended to be used as a computer in order just to get it to run OS and
applications.
Personally, I consider the SS-50 bus boxes to be some of the
better designs as far as being able to start using the machine with
minimum fuss or additional requirements. As early as 1976 they
included a ROM monitor, from Motorolla, and enough I/O to connect a
serial terminal.
>When you opened the box with your COCO, what useful work would it do with
the
>$399 you had just spent? Could you write a
letter? Could you write and
>compile a Fortran program? Could you save your work in any meaningful way?
>Given that you had a printer, could you attach it and use it? What
software
was there, that
you could install and use? How and where would you install
it?
A base CoCo, without any type of expansion, could run
non-game applications such as the following:
- Audio Spectrum Analyzer (real time waveform display of audio input)
- Color Scripsit for the Color Computer (word processing program)
- Typing Tutor
- Videotex
There are plenty more but these are the ones that I own that
I can think of off the top of my head. All are in cartridge format
so they don't require a disk drive. Of course, there's always the
internal BASIC. Without that addition of the disk drive, you could
always use the cassette interface. There was even a version of the
CoCo1 that was sold as a terminal with the Videotex software in it's
ROM vice BASIC.
nearly similar actual capabilities. RS never did
build something genuinely
intended for expansion though, did they?
Yes, RS liked to do odd things so that you couldn't expand
thier systems. They didn't do it to all of their systems though.
Except for the console cased 1000EX/HX, most of the 1000 series are
pretty expandable, nearly equal to any other XT-clone as long as you
knew some of the odd quirks to watch out for. The Model 2000 has 4
16bit expansion slots, though unfortunately few boards were made to
work in it. Others such as the Model III and 4 had minimal expansion
options internal but came standard with cassette, serial, parallel
and external bus extensions. RS was actually one of the earlier
adopters of built-in I/O ports while other micros still required you
to purchase them seperately. Their SL/TL series even had built-in
DAC's for sound input/output about the time the SoundBlaster and
AdLib cards were becoming popular.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
27 Apr
27 Apr
12:03 a.m.
New subject: expansion differences (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
Personally, I
consider the SS-50 bus boxes to be some of the
better designs as far as being able to start using the machine with
minimum fuss or additional requirements. As early as 1976 they
included a ROM monitor, from Motorolla, and enough I/O to connect a
serial terminal.
I don't know why they didn't become more popular, except that I never
encountered anyone who had a complete system built on the SS-50. One thing
that helped interest me in S-100, initially, was that, provided I was running
CP/M, I could buy a vast supply of used floppy diskettes with things like
Wordstar, various compilers, various interpreters, ... you get the idea ...
I'm not sure that was possible for someone using SS-50 hardware. What OS was
popular on that hardware? Which CPU's? from Helix.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
24 Apr
24 Apr
4:55 a.m.
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
An easy
way to spot a product intended for the toy market as opposed to one
intended to be seen as a computer, is that the disk drive interface is
external.
Jeez, Dick. I can't believe you dragged me back into this. Where did
you find that little tidbit of inductive logic?
You're calling the entire DECstation 5000/2xx line "products intended
for the toy market as opposed to one intended to be seen as a computer",
since they have no internal mass storage. Do I think that was a great
design? No. Did _anyone_ _ever_ mistake them for a toy? Get a grip.
No matter whether or not you _like_ those DECstations, or a score of
other application-oriented computers that had external-storage-only
designs, that statement is just ludicrous.
Given the price of storage in the timeframe you're discussing, the
capacity to share disks and drives between computers without dismantling
the machine was a very good idea.
An easy way to spot a Microsoft/Intel patsy is his tendency to present
his own [generally incredibly narrow] viewpoint as immutable fact.
Doc
6:41 a.m.
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Doc wrote:
The VAST majority of mainframes have only external disk storage. I don't
think *anyone* would confuse an ES/9000 9221 with a toy.
Peace... Sridhar
An easy way to
spot a product intended for the toy market as opposed to one
intended to be seen as a computer, is that the disk drive interface is
external.
Jeez, Dick. I can't believe you dragged me back into this. Where
did you find that little tidbit of inductive logic?
You're calling the entire DECstation 5000/2xx line "products
intended for the toy market as opposed to one intended to be seen as a
computer", since they have no internal mass storage. Do I think that
was a great design? No. Did _anyone_ _ever_ mistake them for a toy?
Get a grip. No matter whether or not you _like_ those DECstations, or
a score of other application-oriented computers that had
external-storage-only designs, that statement is just ludicrous.
3:16 p.m.
Where a mainframe's concerned, the building's the enclosure. Nobody would
confuse a mainframe costing billions to purchase and maintain over years, a
toy. Not even I would go that far.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sridhar the POWERful" <vance(a)ikickass.org>
To: "Doc" <doc(a)mdrconsult.com>
Cc: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
The VAST majority of mainframes have only external disk storage. I don't
think *anyone* would confuse an ES/9000 9221 with a toy.
Peace... Sridhar
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Doc wrote:
> > An easy way to spot a product intended for the toy market as opposed to
one
intended to be seen as a computer, is that the disk
drive interface is
external.
Jeez, Dick. I can't believe you dragged me back into this. Where
did you find that little tidbit of inductive logic?
You're calling the entire DECstation 5000/2xx line "products
intended for the toy market as opposed to one intended to be seen as a
computer", since they have no internal mass storage. Do I think that
was a great design? No. Did _anyone_ _ever_ mistake them for a toy?
Get a grip. No matter whether or not you _like_ those DECstations, or
a score of other application-oriented computers that had
external-storage-only designs, that statement is just ludicrous.
7:34 a.m.
New subject: "Toy" computers (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
--- Doc <doc(a)mdrconsult.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
An
easy way to spot a product intended for the toy market as opposed to
one intended to be seen as a computer, is that the disk drive interface
is external.
You're calling the entire DECstation 5000/2xx line "products intended
for the toy market as opposed to one intended to be seen as a computer",
since they have no internal mass storage.
I'm not so sure I understand what Dick is asserting here... If he means
"no internal mass storage; all disks external", I think we can all come up
with a raft of exceptions (from my own collection, DECMate I, VAX-11/750,
PDP-11/70, VAX 8200, PDP-8/L, MINC-11... hardly computers for the "toy
market"). One might argue that mini-computers would not be confused
with toys, but from a form-factor standpoint, A DECmate-I CPU, for example,
is smaller than a TRS-80 Model III. A MINC-11 isn't particularly large
compared to a full-tower case (and the BA32 that contains is about the
same size; the 42" rack just has room for cables; no active components).
If he means "no internal mass storage interface", he might have something
of a point. Ignoring audio cassette, I can think of few computers more
complicated than a traditional "single-board" computer that lack an in-
cabinet mass storage interface. The PET, VIC-20 and C-64 all interface
to disks (floppy _and_ fixed (D9060/D9090 for the PET, anyway)) without
any sort of hardware or ROM pgrade, but the disk is external. The ZX-80-
family lacks any sort of internal disk interface. The Elf, the VIP, the
KIM, SYM, AIM-65, etc., all SBCs and all lacking disk interfaces. Non-
Zorro-equipped Amigas (A1000, A500, A500+) have floppy but not hard disk
interfaces in-box, but the A600 and A1200 have 44-pin internal IDE ports.
Does that make the A500 a toy, but not the A600?
I would propose that the label "toy" might be suitable for machines that
have external disk controllers _and_ an external network interface (if
any; I'll bend and accept a serial port as a network interface if it runs
some network protocol - SLIP, PPP, LocalTalk, DDCMP...) I'm not sure
how to classify single-boards, though. By the nature of them being
simplistic in design and user-interface, they appeal to the electronics
hobby market more than the home/kids market. Kids wanted a TI-99/4 or
a VIC-20 or a C-64. Kids were not so enthusiastic about a Z-80 starter
kit (which happens to have two S-100 slots and an intergral EPROM
burner) or a KIM-1 or a COSMAC Elf.
Mind you, I love toy computers. They have been fun and profitable for
me. Others, though, need that "bittybox" label to glorify whatever
they like at the expense of others. Let's at least agree on what
constitutes a "toy", even in the most general of terms.
Meanwhile... Back To The Toys!
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
3:18 p.m.
New subject: "Toy" computers (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
It depends on where you put the boundary of the enclosure. In the case of the
VAXen we had once upon a time, since the computer occupied multiple racks, and
the PSU's/UPS' occupied multiple racks, the building was the enclosure.
Nothing from DEC could be considered inexpensive to be a toy, though.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ethan Dicks" <erd_6502(a)yahoo.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:34 PM
Subject: "Toy" computers (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
--- Doc <doc(a)mdrconsult.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
An
easy way to spot a product intended for the toy market as opposed to
one intended to be seen as a computer, is that the disk drive interface
is external.
You're calling the entire DECstation 5000/2xx line "products intended
for the toy market as opposed to one intended to be seen as a computer",
since they have no internal mass storage.
I'm not so sure I understand what Dick is asserting here... If he means
"no internal mass storage; all disks external", I think we can all come up
with a raft of exceptions (from my own collection, DECMate I, VAX-11/750,
PDP-11/70, VAX 8200, PDP-8/L, MINC-11... hardly computers for the "toy
market"). One might argue that mini-computers would not be confused
with toys, but from a form-factor standpoint, A DECmate-I CPU, for example,
is smaller than a TRS-80 Model III. A MINC-11 isn't particularly large
compared to a full-tower case (and the BA32 that contains is about the
same size; the 42" rack just has room for cables; no active components).
If he means "no internal mass storage interface", he might have something
of a point. Ignoring audio cassette, I can think of few computers more
complicated than a traditional "single-board" computer that lack an in-
cabinet mass storage interface. The PET, VIC-20 and C-64 all interface
to disks (floppy _and_ fixed (D9060/D9090 for the PET, anyway)) without
any sort of hardware or ROM pgrade, but the disk is external. The ZX-80-
family lacks any sort of internal disk interface. The Elf, the VIP, the
KIM, SYM, AIM-65, etc., all SBCs and all lacking disk interfaces. Non-
Zorro-equipped Amigas (A1000, A500, A500+) have floppy but not hard disk
interfaces in-box, but the A600 and A1200 have 44-pin internal IDE ports.
Does that make the A500 a toy, but not the A600?
I would propose that the label "toy" might be suitable for machines that
have external disk controllers _and_ an external network interface (if
any; I'll bend and accept a serial port as a network interface if it runs
some network protocol - SLIP, PPP, LocalTalk, DDCMP...) I'm not sure
how to classify single-boards, though. By the nature of them being
simplistic in design and user-interface, they appeal to the electronics
hobby market more than the home/kids market. Kids wanted a TI-99/4 or
a VIC-20 or a C-64. Kids were not so enthusiastic about a Z-80 starter
kit (which happens to have two S-100 slots and an intergral EPROM
burner) or a KIM-1 or a COSMAC Elf.
Mind you, I love toy computers. They have been fun and profitable for
me. Others, though, need that "bittybox" label to glorify whatever
they like at the expense of others. Let's at least agree on what
constitutes a "toy", even in the most general of terms.
Meanwhile... Back To The Toys!
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
1:52 p.m.
Whatever debate there may be about the qualification of a piece of DEC
hardware as a computer, the price alone was sufficient to remove any suspicion
that it was a toy.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc" <doc(a)mdrconsult.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> >
> An easy way to spot a product intended for the toy market as opposed to
one
intended to be
seen as a computer, is that the disk drive interface is
external.
Jeez, Dick. I can't believe you dragged me back into this. Where did
you find that little tidbit of inductive logic?
You're calling the entire DECstation 5000/2xx line "products intended
for the toy market as opposed to one intended to be seen as a computer",
since they have no internal mass storage. Do I think that was a great
design? No. Did _anyone_ _ever_ mistake them for a toy? Get a grip.
No matter whether or not you _like_ those DECstations, or a score of
other application-oriented computers that had external-storage-only
designs, that statement is just ludicrous.
Given the price of storage in the timeframe you're discussing, the
capacity to share disks and drives between computers without dismantling
the machine was a very good idea.
An easy way to spot a Microsoft/Intel patsy is his tendency to present
his own [generally incredibly narrow] viewpoint as immutable fact.
Doc
2:27 p.m.
Whatever debate there may be about the qualification
of a piece of DEC
hardware as a computer, the price alone was sufficient to remove any suspicion
that it was a toy.
Ah, I get it. The PCjr wasn't a toy either, then.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- LET'S GO FORWARD ... INTO THE PAST! ----------------------------------------
3:38 p.m.
Well, not if you asked the vendor. If it was a toy, it wasn't a very good
one. If it wasn't, it would surely surprise the kids who played with 'em in
school.
I'm not sure what answer you'd have gotten from Atari about some of their
earlier machines, had you asked whether they were toys.
Likewise the low-end Commodores. Nevertheless, it was up to the owner to
decide what his intentions were.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Kaiser" <spectre(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
> Whatever debate there may be about the
qualification of a piece of DEC
> hardware as a computer, the price alone was sufficient to remove any
suspicion
that it was a
toy.
Ah, I get it. The PCjr wasn't a toy either, then.
--
----------------------------- personal page: Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University *
ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- LET'S GO FORWARD ... INTO THE
PAST!
----------------------------------------
10:48 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1056 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020424/ee5f807d/at…
3:34 p.m.
As I've said before, I think not, since the building was the enclosure for
those systems that had external racks for some of their hardware. I've never
maintained that the drives had to be in the same box, but only that the
interface did. I think if you look at the way the market diverged and later
converged again, with, in some cases, several separately powered boxes, in
others, multiple boxes powered from the host, it's pretty clear that some
systems were intended to be brought into the household bit-by-bit as one could
afford them or as one realized he couldn't do without them. The difference
was that you needed, generally to keep an interface in the cardcage with the
CPU, more or less. In those systems that extended their I/O via channels in
separate racks, I hardly think there's any confusion about who the intended
user was or what the purpose was.
Lots of folks made a computer out of an Atari box that originally came into
the house as a video toy for the kids. Lots of computers were used to play
games. The boundaries aren't really clear. However, in general, if it came
with a hard disk inside, it probably wasn't a video game.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
> An easy way to spot a product intended for the
toy market as opposed to
one
intended to be
seen as a computer, is that the disk drive interface is
external.
So by your (as ever, broken) defintion, the PDP11, PDP8, Philips P800
series, etc are all 'intended for the toy market'? This is getting
totally stupid.
What about the HP71? This is a pocket computer (that can take up to 512K
of memory (ROM + RAM) and which has a very nice built-in BASIC with
optional FORTH and Assembler) with an _optional_ HPIL interface module.
You cna add a disk drive, digital tape drive, RS232 port, HPIB port,
parallel port, video display, A4 plotter, inkjet printer, etc, etc, etc
(all at the same time I might add). It's also one of the few pocket
computers where you can interlink half a dozen of them and transfer files
between them (yes, there's a proper filing system with named files for
data in the machine's RAM). But as the disk drive is external and the
interface a plug-in cartridge, presumably it's 'intended for the toy
market' ?
-tony
4:15 a.m.
I haven't
looked at the insides of the COCO2 I've got sitting
here, but I
don't see any place for a FDD or a HDD. Are there serial
Yep, that's a problem. Mine had a Floppy controller that plugged
into the cartridge slot. The tape setup wasn't bad either, for the
time. Yeah, I'm certain there was a serial port, but I
can't tell you
about it. It's been a while.
If memory serves correctly, the serial port was a software bit-banger.
if you compare
the price of a typical PC Clone available the
same year the
COCO2 was offered, how do they compare in price, avaialble
software base, etc?
There's lots of software for CoCo, but I don't have numbers.
5:17 a.m.
New subject: Coco (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Christopher Smith wrote:
Yeah, I'm certain there was a serial port, but I
can't tell you
about it. It's been a while.
Yes, it had a serial port. with a 4 pin DIN? It was clearly described in
their literature as being "RS-232". Unfortunately, that stood for "RADIO
SHACK 232".
> expand it to do something useful?
No more or less so than any other computer.
Like any other computer, you can use it to keep track of notes,
receipts, appointments, etc. (all of which can usually be done as well,
or better, by a refrigerator door.) As a terminal or word processor, it
was badly limited by the screen configuration.
Actually, there are applications that do 80x24 in some
high-res
video mode, for word processing and the like. I ran at least one
on my CoCo1 with 64k of RAM.
There were numerous fixes, some good, some bad. (such as 3 x 6 character
matrix to get more characters on the screen)
> ... see what I mean? You have to do so much to
the thing
> that RS sells you
> that it takes up a whole tabletop just to get to what's in
> the PC's box, and
So?
Is your "Hi-Fi" ALSO all in one box? Or is it a group of separate
components?
You're not capable of reboxing a computer?
A friend, and business associate, used to repackage computers into
Halliburton attache cases. He made a portable Coco with drives, 5" screen
(and connection for external), as well as a number of other models.
His "BMC-80" one piece portable CP/M machine was introduced (at my
booth) at the West Coast Computer Faire a day before Osborne's
introduction. That did not stop Adam from calling his "first and
only" even though he had already spent half an hour admiring ours before
his was introduced. That's all right. His booth had ~$50K of chrome and
black plexiglass; WE had cold beer (which repeatedly got us free ink in
Jerry Pournelle's column).
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
3:10 p.m.
New subject: Coco (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response
Repackaging is a lot of hassle, expensive, and seldom improves the
functionality.
That doesn't mean it NEVER is of benefit, but seldom.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:17 AM
Subject: Coco (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Christopher Smith wrote:
Yeah, I'm certain there was a serial port,
but I can't tell you
about it. It's been a while.
Yes, it had a serial port. with a 4 pin DIN? It was clearly described in
their literature as being "RS-232". Unfortunately, that stood for "RADIO
SHACK 232".
> expand it to do something useful?
No more or less so than any other computer.
Like any other computer, you can use it to keep track of notes,
receipts, appointments, etc. (all of which can usually be done as well,
or better, by a refrigerator door.) As a terminal or word processor, it
was badly limited by the screen configuration.
Actually, there are applications that do 80x24 in
some high-res
video mode, for word processing and the like. I ran at least one
on my CoCo1 with 64k of RAM.
There were numerous fixes, some good, some bad. (such as 3 x 6 character
matrix to get more characters on the screen)
> ... see what I mean? You have to do so much
to the thing
> that RS sells you
> that it takes up a whole tabletop just to get to what's in
> the PC's box, and
So?
Is your "Hi-Fi" ALSO all in one box? Or is it a group of separate
components?
You're not capable of reboxing a computer?
A friend, and business associate, used to repackage computers into
Halliburton attache cases. He made a portable Coco with drives, 5" screen
(and connection for external), as well as a number of other models.
His "BMC-80" one piece portable CP/M machine was introduced (at my
booth) at the West Coast Computer Faire a day before Osborne's
introduction. That did not stop Adam from calling his "first and
only" even though he had already spent half an hour admiring ours before
his was introduced. That's all right. His booth had ~$50K of chrome and
black plexiglass; WE had cold beer (which repeatedly got us free ink in
Jerry Pournelle's column).
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
8029
days inactive
8040
days old
85 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bpope＠wordstock.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
classiccmp＠vintage-computer.com -
csmith＠amdocs.com -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
eklein＠impac.com -
erd_6502＠yahoo.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
hansp＠aconit.org -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
red＠bears.org -
sloboyko＠yahoo.com -
spc＠conman.org -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu -
vance＠ikickass.org