22 Jun
1997
22 Jun
'97
7:44 a.m.
From: "e.tedeschi"
<e.tedeschi(a)ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Why?
Well, to get more specific, I have the (perhaps wrong)
feeling that:
a) You are against collectors who collect for the
historical importance
onyl and are not really worried if the item works or not (as long as all
the parts are in there and the thing can be made to work if and when
required). I have been ridiculized when I suggested this one way to go
about collecting.
I have never felt that here, and I have several items in my collection
in non-working order. Would I give up my P-500, MTU VMM board, or
SuperPET if I never got them fixed? NO! I would hope to get them fixed
but the important thing now is to get them, mainly because it is part of
the 'collection' if they work, wonderful, if they don't they still has
meaning.
b) You are against collectors who want ot take out
bits and pieces from
the systems in order to show them separately (but retaining and perhaps
even ehibiting the "crippled" item). I have been refused help in thsi
respect when it became apparent I was going to do this.
I think that may be personal views by individual collectors and not by
the group in whole. Some feel that not having 'original parts' or
add-ons is blasphmey. I can understand and appreciate where you come
from, there are compnents of computers that are shear art as the disk
controller in the apple II (from what I read the board was drawn 'not
designed by computer' by Steve Wozniac.) I would be interested to learn
more about it. There have been chips that have amazed me too. Everyone
has their own intrest. The only reason you are perceiving otherwise is
that those people are the ones that are posting more, from years of
running an BBS as well as participating on the group, the more you post
messages the more attention and notoriety you will receive. If you want
to see something written about an interest of yours, sometimes you just
have to sit down and write it yourself.
c) You are against helping "foreigners" (and
therefore "different")
collectors to export "your" stuff perhaps in the wrong perception that
it will diminish the heritage of the country (yours). I have striken a
deal with one of the subscriber here and he disappeared in the distance
after a while (he did not answer anymore...) By the way does anybody
need British stuff? I would be glad to help you with it.
I reply to what I know (some times I also replay to what I don't know
and put my foot in the mouth in the process). If you see anyone post
about Commodores or PETs more specifically, you can be sure within a day
or so a response from me will follow (unless it is something I am
totally in the dark about). Case in point, Exidy Sorceror, I purchased
one and sent it to Sam Ismael, he is now looking for information, not
very many people ever seen one, much less an ad for one, sometimes the
best we can do is quiote from old magazine ads. :/ Also some of the
sytems are regional and there may not be many people from that area who
have seen that particular machine on this list...
Of course I have no proof of the above but from the
short experience I
had here, I think that the problem exhists as opposed to the "openess"
of other American collecting groups like, for example, the radio
collecting community which has been VERY helpful with me and other
"foreigners" to buy and export stuff from the USA and CANADA (what about
the stuff you ARE importing from overseas then?).
I have sent fellow users disks and cartridges through the mail to
Europe, anything larger I could not afford the shipping. This depends
on the individual. Sam was lucky to get me to shop the Sorcer as quick
as I did, I myself lothe shipping things, especially heavy/bulky
things. I think that again depends on the individual.
I think that if you think I am wrong the best way to
demonstrate it, if
you care, is not with words but with facts.
Thank you for your interest
enrico
You are very welcome and hope you keep with the list and help us all to
work out this misunderstanding.
Larry Anderson
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Visit our web page at: http://www.goldrush.com/~foxnhare/
Call our BBS (Silicon Realms BBS 300-2400 baud) at: (209) 754-1363
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
22 Jun
22 Jun
1:51 p.m.
I think that may be personal views by individual
collectors and not by
the group in whole. Some feel that not having 'original parts' or
add-ons is blasphmey. I can understand and appreciate where you come
Hmmm... I see nothing wrong with replacing components in a system - that,
to me, is a natural thing that would have happened to the machine when it
was in use. I can understand people who feel differently, though.
from, there are compnents of computers that are shear
art as the disk
controller in the apple II (from what I read the board was drawn 'not
I'll have to disagree with you there. IMHO the Disk II controller is
nothing other than a kludge. It could certainly have done with a track 0
sensor (that would have stopped the heads from banging on start-up). And,
as a hardware designer, I don't like designs where most of the
functionality is handled in software.
Now, the RX01 (or even the RK02) - they're _elegant_ disk controllers
(ducking to avoid flames....). The RX01 is a large board of TTL that is,
essentially a custom-built microcoded processor. The RX02 (which adds
double-density operation) was built from those wonderful 2900-series
bit-slice chips.
But each to his own. I'm not going to flame Apple ][ enthusiasts, just as
they don't flame DEC and 3RCC enthusiasts. And I'll save Apple hardware if
I see it - I bought a large stack of obscure Apple cards at the last radio
rally (Hamfest).
[...]
totally in the dark about). Case in point, Exidy
Sorceror, I purchased
one and sent it to Sam Ismael, he is now looking for information, not
very many people ever seen one, much less an ad for one, sometimes the
Somewhere I have a Techref for the Sorceror, and one for the S100 adapter
for it. I also have some user group newsletters, etc. Feel free to pester
me on this list if you want me to dig this stuff out.
BTW, it's not up for grabs. I need it to maintain my Sorceror :-)
Larry Anderson
--
-tony
ard12(a)eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
8:23 a.m.
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, A.R. Duell wrote:
I'll have to disagree with you there. IMHO the
Disk II controller is
nothing other than a kludge. It could certainly have done with a track 0
sensor (that would have stopped the heads from banging on start-up). And,
as a hardware designer, I don't like designs where most of the
functionality is handled in software.
It was definitely a kluge, as Woz would be the first to admit. Back when
he was homebrewing the machine that would later be known as the Apple, he
had more time to program than money to buy components -- that's why the
weird disk controller with no sector detect and the 65021 instead of the
8080 -- the 6502 was about a quarter of the price of an 8080 at the time.
--
Ward Griffiths
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within
the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Claire Wolfe
2:36 p.m.
It was definitely a kluge, as Woz would be the first
to admit. Back when
he was homebrewing the machine that would later be known as the Apple, he
had more time to program than money to buy components -- that's why the
weird disk controller with no sector detect and the 65021 instead of the
8080 -- the 6502 was about a quarter of the price of an 8080 at the time.
And the marginal PSU, strange video addressing (to save a few TTL chips),
a couple of marginal timings, etc.
I believe Steve Ciarcia once printed a letter he had received from Woz (or
maybe the other Apple designer) explaining that they were designing a
computer and were using the 6502 because they couldn't afford the 8080. I
can't remember which issue of Byte that was printed in, though.
I can understand why the Apple ][ has a significant following - it was a
machine that was 'open', that hackers could get inside, etc. But I also
know that it's not a good piece of hardware design, and thus don't put it
high up my list of interesting machines.
Ward Griffiths
--
-tony
ard12(a)eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
10 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1854 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19970622/a78f4072/at…
3:21 p.m.
I can
understand why the Apple ][ has a significant following - it was a
machine that was 'open', that hackers could get inside, etc. But I also
know that it's not a good piece of hardware design, and thus don't put it
high up my list of interesting machines.
It depends on how you define "good". Wozniak clearly had a different
definition - he would fret for days about reducing chip count by
using some clever scheme. From the hardware manufacturer's point
of view, a couple dozen assembly language instructions are free, while
chips (and board space) costs real money. Wozniak's attempts to reduce chip count aren't
very different than
the efforts that radio manufacturers have made to reduce tube counts.
Almost all consumer-grade superhets will combine the local oscillator
and the mixer, for example.
Well, in the UK, a 'pentagrid converter' was very uncommon except in
battery sets. Most mains superhets used a triode-hexode frequency changer
- one 'bottle', but separate oscillator (triode) and mixer (hexode)
sections.
Tim. (shoppa(a)triumf.ca)
--
-tony
ard12(a)eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
10:45 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2782 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19970622/8d8ecded/at…
4:03 p.m.
Yes, but it
some cases the 'kludges' led to problems later on - 'trivial'
problems like a total incompatability between the Disk II and just about
any other machine in the world
For the most part, 5.25" disks are incompatible between any
two machines. There never was a standard format, unlike the 8"
world where IBM 3740 dominated (though that didn't mean that
everyone was compatible with it.) a PSU that was beyond the design limit when
running a system
board, language card and 1 drive
No, it isn't. I just measured the system current drain (II+, 1 Disk ][
drive, third-party language-card equivalent) and verified
this isn't true. It is true that every 10 years or so a power supply
will fail, but you can blame Astec for that. that _crazy_ slot addressing scheme
That scheme is actually pretty clever. I can put a disk controller
in slot 5, type "CATALOG,S5" and look at a drive connected to it.
No DIPswitches to set, no BIOS to modify. I can put a printer card in slot 4, type
"PR#4", and now all redirected
to the printer. I can put a serial card in slot 1,
type "IN#1", and now a keyboard hooked to a terminal on the serial
OS-9, one of my favourite micro OS's has a very nice way of handling this.
Suppose you want to add a serial card based on the 6551. You can have a
_generic_ 6551 driver that has no idea of the address of your card, and
then a device descriptor that contains the address and the paramter table
(baud rate, whether you want a LF after a CR, a pause at the end of a
screen,etc). Although most hackers used the standard assembler to make
descriptors, it would be trivial to make a 'user friendly' installation
tool.
IMHO that's a much nicer way to do it than the Apple method which means
you have to know which slot each card is in (and, in a lot of cases there
are 'standard' slots for particular cards that you'd better stick to. What
do you do if you want _2_ 80 column displays in the same machine? One in
slot 3, what about the other one).
and the saving
on chips/PSU consumption by switching the power line to
the I/O card ROM
Which I/O card is this? I've never seen anything quite like this on
any of my peripherals (or if I have, I haven't noticed over the past
20 years.) Saving components is only 'good' when it
doesn't affect performance. I am
not convinced that this is the case with the Apple ][
Oh - you'd have preferred Wozniak to use single-density FM, getting
only 90kbytes per 5.25" floppy, over the GCR which lets you get 140K? Or you'd rather lose some CPU cycles in
order to refresh the
RAM, because your preferred memory-mapped screen layout wouldn't
allow the video circuitry to do it?
Oh come on. You can scramble the address lines to the _RAM_ so that all
cells get refreshed in a sufficiently short time and still have a linear
address map as seen by the processor if you add a few more TTL chips. I've
seen it done on countless other micros.
Tim. (shoppa(a)triumf.ca)
--
-tony
ard12(a)eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
12:42 p.m.
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, A.R. Duell wrote:
As it happens, yes I would if it meant I could transfer data to just about
any other machine of the time.
That's what serial cards and null modems are for :)
(I think this discussion has acheived 'holy war' status).
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
IMHO that's a much nicer way to do it than the
Apple method which means
you have to know which slot each card is in (and, in a lot of cases there
are 'standard' slots for particular cards that you'd better stick to. What
do you do if you want _2_ 80 column displays in the same machine? One in
slot 3, what about the other one).
That was a limitation introduced with the //e. The 80 column board had
its own special slot that took over slot 3 if you had it populated.
However, nothing was stopping you from putting another 80-column board
(such as a Videx) in another slot and using that, although I can't think
for the life of me why you'd need two 80-column cards.
Saving components is only 'good' when it
doesn't affect performance. I am
not convinced that this is the case with the Apple ][
Oh - you'd have preferred Wozniak to use single-density FM, getting
only 90kbytes per 5.25" floppy, over the GCR which lets you get 
2:48 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Sam Ismail once stated:
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, A.R. Duell wrote:
Debugging. You can run your program on one screen, and have debugging
output/debugger output on the second screen. I did that once on a PS/2 when
I was writing code to manage the 8514 display. It was very nice to see not
only the output, but have the debugger not munging the display.
-spc (Could easily get addicted to a system with duo displays)
IMHO that's a much nicer way to do it than
the Apple method which means
you have to know which slot each card is in (and, in a lot of cases there
are 'standard' slots for particular cards that you'd better stick to. What
do you do if you want _2_ 80 column displays in the same machine? One in
slot 3, what about the other one).
That was a limitation introduced with the //e. The 80 column board had
its own special slot that took over slot 3 if you had it populated.
However, nothing was stopping you from putting another 80-column board
(such as a Videx) in another slot and using that, although I can't think
for the life of me why you'd need two 80-column cards.
23 Jun
23 Jun
4:27 a.m.
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, Captain Napalm wrote:
You couldn't do that on an Apple. It only had one video output. Unless
the 80-col card in question had a seperate video output. And then you'd
have to go back to that clever programming thing.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
That was a
limitation introduced with the //e. The 80 column board had
its own special slot that took over slot 3 if you had it populated.
However, nothing was stopping you from putting another 80-column board
(such as a Videx) in another slot and using that, although I can't think
for the life of me why you'd need two 80-column cards.
Debugging. You can run your program on one screen, and have debugging
output/debugger output on the second screen. I did that once on a PS/2 when
I was writing code to manage the 8514 display. It was very nice to see not
only the output, but have the debugger not munging the display. 
8:59 a.m.
Sam Ismail <dastar(a)crl.com> wrote,
But that is how traditional Apple II 80-column cards worked -- they
had their own video output that you had to attach to another monitor
or switch back and forth by hand. The spiffy ones had a switch to
flip back and forth, or the *really* spiffy ones could even do it
in software. But it was only with the IIe that the 80-column video
started to be automatically a part of the internal video output.
Before that, the card might as well have been a terminal attached
to a Super Serial card.
eric
Debugging.
You can run your program on one screen, and have debugging
output/debugger output on the second screen. I did that once on a PS/2 when
I was writing code to manage the 8514 display. It was very nice to see not
only the output, but have the debugger not munging the display.
You couldn't do that on an Apple. It only had one video output. Unless
the 80-col card in question had a seperate video output. And then you'd
have to go back to that clever programming thing.
12:42 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Sam Ismail once stated:
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, Captain Napalm wrote:
You couldn't do that on an Apple. It only had one video output. Unless
the 80-col card in question had a seperate video output. And then you'd
have to go back to that clever programming thing.
Ah. Never got into Apples myself (the only Apple computer I have is the
Newton, which just died on me 8-(
-spc (Well, it still works, just that the presure sensitive screen is
no longer sensitive it seems ... )
That was
a limitation introduced with the //e. The 80 column board had
its own special slot that took over slot 3 if you had it populated.
However, nothing was stopping you from putting another 80-column board
(such as a Videx) in another slot and using that, although I can't think
for the life of me why you'd need two 80-column cards.
Debugging. You can run your program on one screen, and have debugging
output/debugger output on the second screen. I did that once on a PS/2 when
I was writing code to manage the 8514 display. It was very nice to see not
only the output, but have the debugger not munging the display.
22 Jun
22 Jun
12:27 p.m.
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, A.R. Duell wrote:
Yes, but it some cases the 'kludges' led to
problems later on - 'trivial'
problems like a total incompatability between the Disk II and just about
any other machine in the world, 'mariginal behaviour' like a case that
overheated, a PSU that was beyond the design limit when running a system
board, language card and 1 drive, things like that that caused some
machines to crash after about 1 hour, that _crazy_ slot addressing scheme
and the saving on chips/PSU consumption by switching the power line to
the I/O card ROM - I may be old-fashioned, but I don't like driving input
pins past the supply rails..., etc
Saving components is only 'good' when it doesn't affect performance. I am
not convinced that this is the case with the Apple ][
OK, now you're just outright wrong. I've never had any of the problems
you mentioned above with any of my apples. The only problems I ever had
was when I pulled the disk controller card from my ][+ when it was still
powered on (I was young and lame). As far as the system over-heating,
nope. Never happened. PSU beyond the design limit when running a system
board? What on earth are you talking about? Crashed after an hour?
Mine never, ever spontaneously crashed, and I've owned several. Crazy
slot addressing scheme? I think it wored rather well. And the language
card was for the ][+ to have backward compatibility with the ][. That's
bad design? Actually, that's called "customer friendly".
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion Tony, but I think it's driven
mostly by ignorance (I don't mean that in a bad way) or just plain bad luck.
Oh, please don't think I am picking on Apple. The
PERQ (my favourite
machine) has a number of _very_ marginal timings. The various CPU board
clocks are delayed with respect to each other by a string of TTL inverters
and buffers. Some memory cards will only work in landscape mode - the
timing is 'on the edge', so that the portrait mode doesn't work. And for
those that do work in portrait mode as well you often have to change a
coupld of chips to slower versions (say a 74S157 -> 74LS157) to get it to
work correctly.
If what you described above is correct, then did it work? If so, it
wasn't such a bad design after all, was it? If not, then yeah, the design
sucked. What you describe here, in contrast to the Apple design, is in
fact poor design. The Apple ][, as designed the way it was, worked fine.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
7:24 p.m.
Why doesn't anybody lokk at the APPLE II from the social point of view?
Tgis computer, with its VISICALC, change the way offices and home
businesses, worked. It has also changed the life of million of persones.
It has definetely change mine.
If you want to just look at its technology (which is not everyting in a
machine) you should place it in the right time slot. Whet it came out
there was never comparable and it remained so for a LONG time. You can
STILL use it today! I mean really use it, not just power up like you do
with TRS-80s and Pets.
Long live the Apple II
enrico
23 Jun
23 Jun
2:52 a.m.
[Apple ][]
there was never comparable and it remained so for a
LONG time. You can
STILL use it today! I mean really use it, not just power up like you do
with TRS-80s and Pets.
You can still use PETs for serious work - I fired one up the other day to
test an IEEE-488 interfaced instrument. The PET with its built-in Basic
was the quickest way to do that (rather than to say write some Pascal on
the PERQ, sort out the lack of secondary addressing in the system-supplied
routines, and get it all to run).
To try to defuse this Apple ][ flamefest....
I was worn out last night. I'd spent most of the weekend fixing a
laserprinter (an Apple, as it happens, but the problem was in the
Canon-designed engine - the Apple bits worked fine). So I probably said a
few things a bit more strongly than I should have done.
The Apple 2 is :
An historically significant machine. No question about it. As was said in
the bit that I deleted, Visicalc was the first (popular?) spreadsheet.
That alone makes it an important machine
An 'interesting' (even if I don't like it, I'll agree it's
interesting)
design. Some of Woz's designs are, well, not what I would do, but I can
understand the motivation behind them. This doesn't mean I have to like
them.
Still useful 20 years after it was first produced. Mind you, that applies
to 99% of all classic computers :-)
A machine that belongs on this list. Don't think I am flaming anyone here
for talking about it.
And lots more besides.
One thing that is possibly relevant is that I don't have _any_ modern
computers. No Pentiums - my latest PC is a much-hacked PC/AT with the
original type 2 motherboard. If I want to do some computing I use one of
my older machines - the PC, the PERQ, the CoCo, the PDP8, the PDP11, etc.
So I like machines that are 100% reliable (and my Apples never have been -
maybe I should sort out what the heck is going on), and that have hardware
I can get amongst, modify, etc.
Long live the Apple II
Agreed... I may not use my Apples for serious work any more, but I have no
intention of getting rid of them
enrico
--
-tony
ard12(a)eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
2:28 a.m.
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, A.R. Duell wrote:
OK, it appears that I had a very marginal machine. It happens. On the
other hand (and I _know_ others will disagree here) I _never_ had any
crashes from my TRS-80 Model 1. It was 100% stable.
Yes, but it some cases the 'kludges' led
to problems later on - 'trivial'
problems like a total incompatability between the Disk II and just about
any other machine in the world, 'mariginal behaviour' like a case that
overheated, a PSU that was beyond the design limit when running a system
board, language card and 1 drive, things like that that caused some
machines to crash after about 1 hour, that _crazy_ slot addressing scheme
and the saving on chips/PSU consumption by switching the power line to
the I/O card ROM - I may be old-fashioned, but I don't like driving input
pins past the supply rails..., etc
Saving components is only 'good' when it doesn't affect performance. I am
not convinced that this is the case with the Apple ][
OK, now you're just outright wrong. I've never had any of the problems
you mentioned above with any of my apples. The only problems I ever had was when I pulled the disk controller card from my ][+
when it was still
powered on (I was young and lame). As far as the system over-heating,
nope. Never happened. PSU beyond the design limit when running a system
board? What on earth are you talking about? Crashed after an hour?
When I was having serious Apple ][ problems I measured the supply current
drawn by my Apple ][ motherboard, language card and one disk. IIRC it was
slightly _more_ than the rating for the PSU given in the Techref.
Mine never, ever spontaneously crashed, and I've
owned several. Crazy
slot addressing scheme? I think it wored rather well. And the language
card was for the ][+ to have backward compatibility with the ][. That's
bad design? Actually, that's called "customer friendly".
I never said the language card was a bad design. It was a useful piece of
hardware.
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion Tony, but I think it's driven
mostly by ignorance (I don't mean that in a bad way) or just plain bad luck.
I was trying to use an Apple ][ seriously in about 1983. I had no luck at
all with it. I read the TechRef, and the view I got _time and again_ was
that this 'feature' existed to save a cheap TTL chip. Now, IMHO that's
_not_ a good design.
I can name a number of things (not Apple, not even just classic computers)
that I've had to redesign because the manufacturers wanted to save a few
bucks worth of components. I'd have much rather payed extra in the first
place, but alas the design was driven by price.
Oh, please don't think I am picking on Apple.
The PERQ (my favourite
machine) has a number of _very_ marginal timings. The various CPU board
clocks are delayed with respect to each other by a string of TTL inverters
and buffers. Some memory cards will only work in landscape mode - the
timing is 'on the edge', so that the portrait mode doesn't work. And for
those that do work in portrait mode as well you often have to change a
coupld of chips to slower versions (say a 74S157 -> 74LS157) to get it to
work correctly.
If what you described above is correct, then did it work? If so, it wasn't such a bad design after all, was it? If
not, then yeah, the design
A bad design can still work. It is just more likely to fail under strange
circumstances, it's dependant on component values, etc.
Apart from my bad luck on the PSU, the Apple ][ works. It still works. In
that sense it was not a bad design. But if you accept that things that
don't work are not simply bad designs - they're useless - then you have to
find some other way to judge 'goodness'.
sucked. What you describe here, in contrast to the
Apple design, is in
fact poor design. The Apple ][, as designed the way it was, worked fine.
The PERQ worked as designed (or at least my 3 all do)
Remember that in many areas the PERQ was pushing a 1970's design to the
limits. There's a 100MHz clock on the Landscape memory board (at a time
when most other manufacturers thought 20MHz was fast). There's signals on
the CPU board that are skewed by 4ns - a delay that could easily have been
lost by bad layout or spread of chip timings. They were trying to design a
fast personal workstation, and managed to do it. The Apple ][ was not
particularly fast (in the signal timings) for the time, and IMHO there's
no excuse for some of the tricks that were pulled.
Sam
--
-tony
ard12(a)eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
12:26 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great A.R. Duell once stated:
Case in point: the IBM PC.
And forgoing the choice of CPU [1], there were still hardware problems
with it (IRQ 7 was lost due to the signal not being buffered, and then
there's the whole problem with not sharing IRQs to begin with ... )
-spc (Still amazed that the PC is the only computer (I know of) that
can't share IRQs ... )
[1] Given the time frame, contraints, politics and projected life
expentancy of Project Chess, the choice of an 8088 isn't THAT
bad. Not going with CP/M on the other hand ...
If what you described above is correct, then did
it work? If so, it
Yes, it worked. It still works 100% AFAIK
wasn't such a bad design after all, was it?
If not, then yeah, the design
A bad design can still work.
22 Jun
22 Jun
12:13 p.m.
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, A.R. Duell wrote:
I can understand why the Apple ][ has a significant
following - it was a
machine that was 'open', that hackers could get inside, etc. But I also
know that it's not a good piece of hardware design, and thus don't put it
high up my list of interesting machines.
Ok, now you're getting downright insulting! :)
On the contrary, the Apple ][ is such an interesting machine BECAUSE of
the tricks the Woz used to arrive at the design. Sure its got some
terrible features, especially the graphics, but they could all be
overcome with clever software tricks, and that's why (in my opinion of
course) the best programmers came from the Apple ][ realm. You HAD to be
good. Whatever it was about the Apple ][, it still lives on today and
enjoys a healthy user base. I still have mine sitting in a corner that I
still fire up for various reasons (moslty nostalgia and to make copies of
software for people). However, once I get around to imnplementing my
grand network scheme in my office, my Apple will actually be a server on
the network (via serial) that I can access to pull old files off my
Sider][ harddrive. And that, incidentally, will require some clever
programming.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
2:03 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 647 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19970622/a3bd4348/at…
12:27 p.m.
New subject: Apple II hardware design
A.R. Duell wrote:
I can understand why the Apple ][ has a significant
following - it was a
machine that was 'open', that hackers could get inside, etc. But I also
know that it's not a good piece of hardware design, and thus don't put it
high up my list of interesting machines.
I'm a newbie to the world of Apple, spending my early years with
Timex-Sinclair's and TRS-80's. I would have to say that your statement
above though depends on what you call a 'good piece of hardware
design'. For me, it ranks up there with the ZX-81 as an ingenius
hardware design due to it's simplicity. I mean heck, as far as boards
go, the Apple II mainboard is almost beautiful in it's layout due to
this. I often find it interesting to think about the total 180 degree
turn Apple did between the ][ series and the Mac's as far as
expandability and such. They went from a totally open system to a
totally closed system. They should've stuck with the open.
As for the difference in a system using hardware to drive things or
software, just look at the difference in some floppy drives used in
various other things. The drives used for like the Atari 8bits were
extremely flexible, as were those with the Amiga, while drives used on
any PC, regardless of age unless it has a special controller, are very
limited to just what the hardware will let them use. Of course, I don't
have anywhere near the knowledge in this area that people like Allison
do!
Jeff jeffh(a)unix.aardvarkol.com
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amiga enthusiast and collector of early, classic microcomputers
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
(corrected URL)
3:45 p.m.
New subject: Apple II hardware design
A.R. Duell wrote:
Well, the ZX81 is another machine on my 'kludge list' :-). Minimal
hardware designs do not, in general interest me....
I love board after board stuffed with TTL. I have machines with a couple
of _thousand_ chips in them, still running, and great fun to repair and
maitain.
Simplicity is nice, but inginuity is even nicer. Compare the Apple ][
video system with (say) a PPL or I2S framestore for a PDP11, and you'll
see what _real_ video hardware is like (yes, I know, no comparison - the
PDP11 framestores were 100 times the cost of an Apple ][).
I've never liked bit-banged serial ports either (except on
microcontrollers). They always seem to have problems with full-duplex
operation. Yes, Apple sold a bit-banged serial port for a time - I have
one with the manual (which, amazingly contains instructions on linking it
to an ASR33), presumably to save a UART chip. They then sold one that
worked properly (in full-duplex mode, etc) under the name 'super serial
card'. It used (IIRC) a 6850 chip (or was it a 6551?)
I can understand why the Apple ][ has a
significant following - it was a
machine that was 'open', that hackers could get inside, etc. But I also
know that it's not a good piece of hardware design, and thus don't put it
high up my list of interesting machines.
I'm a newbie to the world of Apple, spending my early years with
Timex-Sinclair's and TRS-80's. I would have to say that your statement
above though depends on what you call a 'good piece of hardware
design'. For me, it ranks up there with the ZX-81 as an ingenius
hardware design due to it's simplicity. I mean heck, as far as boards go, the Apple II mainboard is almost beautiful in
it's layout due to
this. I often find it interesting to think about the total 180 degree
turn Apple did between the ][ series and the Mac's as far as
expandability and such. They went from a totally open system to a
totally closed system. They should've stuck with the open.
The minimalist approach to hardware was still present in (at least) the
early Macs. I was inside a Mac+ the other day, and the mainboard seemed to
consist of the expected chips (68000, ROMs, RAM SIMMs, 5380, 8530, etc)
and a few PALs + TTL stuff. How the video side works is a mystery to me...
Ditto the Apple Laserwriter 2NT (I've just been working on one). The
engine interface on the formatter board seems to consist of a few bits on
a VIA for the command/status lines, a small FIFO, a few TTL devices, a
state machine in a PAL, and (I guess) some clever 68000 software.
As for the difference in a system using hardware to drive things or
software, just look at the difference in some floppy drives used in
various other things. The drives used for like the Atari 8bits were
extremely flexible, as were those with the Amiga, while drives used on
An Apple ][ drive + controller can't (AFAIK) read a standard FM or MFM
disk, no matter how clever the software, just as a PC controller can't
read a GCR (Apple or Commodore) disk.
any PC, regardless of age unless it has a special
controller, are very
limited to just what the hardware will let them use. Of course, I don't
This is true, but if you want to do strange things with PC (or any other)
hardware then design the card you need. It's not that hard, and it won't
affect the machine's performance in other areas.
Jeff jeffh(a)unix.aardvarkol.com
--
-tony
ard12(a)eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
12:34 p.m.
New subject: Apple II hardware design
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, A.R. Duell wrote:
This is true, but if you want to do strange things
with PC (or any other)
hardware then design the card you need. It's not that hard, and it won't
affect the machine's performance in other areas.
But its much faster and easier to do it with software. One of the
things that made the Apple so nice was that it was an excellent
prototyping machine. You had all sorts of inputs and outputs with which
to play with. You didn't need to spend time designing an interface card,
the Apple was experimenter ready! Just add software.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
23 Jun
23 Jun
2:13 a.m.
New subject: Apple II hardware design
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, A.R. Duell wrote:
Maybe for you. I find it a lot easier to solder up a card (which has a
good chance of working first or second time...) than to write and debug
software. In all my recent projects the hardware (quite complex hardware
- 10's of chips) has taken a lot less time than the (minimal) software.
This is true, but if you want to do strange
things with PC (or any other)
hardware then design the card you need. It's not that hard, and it won't
affect the machine's performance in other areas.
But its much faster and easier to do it with software. One of the things that made the Apple so nice was that it was an
excellent
prototyping machine. You had all sorts of inputs and outputs with which
to play with. You didn't need to spend time designing an interface card,
the Apple was experimenter ready! Just add software.
The standard I/O (on the games port) consisted of (IIRC) a few
resitor-reading ADCs, a few single-bit inputs and a few outputs. Not a lot
IMHO. The BBC micro had 8 I/O lines, another 8 outputs if you didn't use
the printer port, handshake lines for all those, 4 ADC channels (10 bit, I
think) _and_ a system bus with a couple of decoded chip select signals on
it. That's what I call an experimenter's machine.
And is it that hard to design an address decoder? It's one chip these
days, probably 2 or 3 at the time the Apple 2 was 'current'
Sam
--
-tony
ard12(a)eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
4:53 a.m.
New subject: Apple II hardware design
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, A.R. Duell wrote:
Maybe for you. I find it a lot easier to solder up a card (which has a
good chance of working first or second time...) than to write and debug
software. In all my recent projects the hardware (quite complex hardware
- 10's of chips) has taken a lot less time than the (minimal) software.
Depends on your forte. Mine happens to be software. I'll bet I can
write the software faster than you can solder the board. HOWEVER, I'll
also wager that you have a lot more flexibility since you can design in
features to your hardware that I cannot program in to my software.
Probably or you know for sure?
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
This is true, but if you want to do strange things
with PC (or any other)
hardware then design the card you need. It's not that hard, and it won't
affect the machine's performance in other areas.
But its much faster and easier to do it with software. One of the things that
made the Apple so nice was that it was an excellent
prototyping machine. You had all sorts of inputs and outputs with which
to play with. You didn't need to spend time designing an interface card,
the Apple was experimenter ready! Just add software.
The standard I/O (on the games port) consisted of (IIRC) a few
resitor-reading ADCs, a few single-bit inputs and a few outputs. Not a lot
IMHO. The BBC micro had 8 I/O lines, another 8 outputs if you didn't use
the printer port, handshake lines for all those, 4 ADC channels (10 bit, I
think) _and_ a system bus with a couple of decoded chip select signals on
it. That's what I call an experimenter's machine.
And is it that hard to design an address decoder? It's one chip these
days, probably 2 or 3 at the time the Apple 2 was 'current'
2:51 p.m.
New subject: Apple II hardware design
Maybe for you.
I find it a lot easier to solder up a card (which has a
good chance of working first or second time...) than to write and debug
software. In all my recent projects the hardware (quite complex hardware
- 10's of chips) has taken a lot less time than the (minimal) software.
Depends on your forte. Mine happens to be software. I'll bet I can write the software faster than you can solder the
board. HOWEVER, I'll
I wouldn't bet on it.... I've been known to go from idea to working
prototype in < 1 day.
also wager that you have a lot more flexibility since
you can design in
features to your hardware that I cannot program in to my software.
And if I'm allowed to use some of those Xilinx FPGA chips, I can even
design reconfigurable hardware that you can change by just downloading a
new file....
[...]
And is it that
hard to design an address decoder? It's one chip these
days, probably 2 or 3 at the time the Apple 2 was 'current'
Probably or you know for sure? Sam
--
-tony
ard12(a)eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
10:05 a.m.
New subject: Apple II hardware design
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1314 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19970623/211dd038/at…
2:13 p.m.
New subject: Apple II hardware design
Ah - if you think of 74LS68x and 14L4's as
"current" with the introduction
of the Apple II, then that helps (to some extent) explain why you
don't like Wozniak's designs. Neither of these devices were even
gleams in anybody's eyes in 1977! The closest you'll come to programmable
logic in 1977 are bipolar PROM's. (Which Woz was no stranger to -
just take a look at the Disk ][ controller!)
Signetic (I think it was them) had some PAL like devices back in the
mid-1970s. I do not think they were as flexible as PALs, but they did
combine the best of the PROM and glue worlds for decoding schemes.
William Donzelli
william(a)ans.net
2:26 p.m.
New subject: Apple II hardware design
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, William Donzelli wrote:
Well, I don't know - you could have used the 7485 and dip
switches/jumpers. 4 chips for 16-bit with one bit/word resolution
for I/O. You could have used 3 chips and ended up with a *standard*
16 register address space for an 6522 or such. I am sure they were
available in 1973. (But they wouldn't have been - ah - inexpensive.
BC
Ah - if you
think of 74LS68x and 14L4's as "current" with the introduction
of the Apple II, then that helps (to some extent) explain why you
don't like Wozniak's designs. Neither of these devices were even
gleams in anybody's eyes in 1977! The closest you'll come to programmable
logic in 1977 are bipolar PROM's. (Which Woz was no stranger to -
just take a look at the Disk ][ controller!)
Signetic (I think it was them) had some PAL like devices back in the
mid-1970s. I do not think they were as flexible as PALs, but they did
combine the best of the PROM and glue worlds for decoding schemes. 
2:46 p.m.
New subject: Historical Research
One of the things *I* think would be really useful for collectors is to
know the number of computers manufactured, both total and by year. The
only problem is in getting this information; anyone have any ideas,
insights, or better yet, connections to past people who would know or be
able to get this information from companies that have ceased business?
Thanks.
3:33 p.m.
New subject: Historical Research
One of the things *I* think would be really useful for
collectors is to
know the number of computers manufactured, both total and by year. The
only problem is in getting this information; anyone have any ideas,
insights, or better yet, connections to past people who would know or be
able to get this information from companies that have ceased business?
I run into all sorts of computer "old timers" at hamfests, and some do
have good stories to tell. That is probably the best way to get
information, as the original sources are most likely gone (even if the
parent companies still exist). This problem is not unique to computers -
those who study radio and radar technology run into the same problems.
Serial numbers DO lie, but they are often the only clues left. One source
of serial numbers (other than those on the machines) is maintenance
documents - especially those concerning ECOs. Often they have notes to
the techinicians concerning which machines (by ranges of serials) get the
treatments.
I did get a good book from an NYC sidewalk vendor the other day -
*Innovating for Failure, Government Policy and the Early British Computer
Industry* by John Hendry. Somewhere he managed to dig up all sorts of
information concerning British and U.S. mainframes in the 1960s,
including a census (yes, I know all of the micro lovers on the list are
just DYING to know how many IBM 360/30s were around in 1966!).
Unfortuneately, he does not give a source.
William Donzelli
william(a)ans.net
4:40 p.m.
New subject: Historical Research
William Donzelli wrote:
I guess another thing that would be useful would be the initial starting
point of the serial numbers for each computer. I find by looking at the
date code on the ICs, I can get *some* idea of when a machine was
actually built. Of course, that assumes that the chips were used
shortly after they were made, and I generally look at a variety of chips
to find the latest date code. I hadn't thought of ECO's; that sounds
like a good idea. Thanks!
One of the things *I* think would be really
useful for collectors is to
know the number of computers manufactured, both total and by year. The
only problem is in getting this information; anyone have any ideas,
Serial numbers DO lie, but they are often the only clues left. One source
of serial numbers (other than those on the machines) is maintenance
documents - especially those concerning ECOs. Often they have notes to
the techinicians concerning which machines (by ranges of serials) get the
treatments.
7:47 p.m.
New subject: Historical Research
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Marvin wrote:
I guess another thing that would be useful would be
the initial starting
point of the serial numbers for each computer. I find by looking at the
date code on the ICs, I can get *some* idea of when a machine was
actually built. Of course, that assumes that the chips were used
shortly after they were made, and I generally look at a variety of chips
to find the latest date code. I hadn't thought of ECO's; that sounds
like a good idea. Thanks!
I've found that some serial numbers will start with 100... instead of,
say, just 1. So the first will end up being 1000001. Another example is
the Apple ][ which started with 2001.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
24 Jun
24 Jun
2:50 a.m.
New subject: Historical Research
Sam Ismail wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Marvin wrote:
I've seen that in a number of instances. If anyone knows the starting
serial numbers for other computers, I would be interested! We have one
now, that Apple II!
I guess another thing that would be useful would
be the initial starting
point of the serial numbers for each computer. I find by looking at the
I've found that some serial numbers will start with 100... instead of,
say, just 1. So the first will end up being 1000001. Another example is
the Apple ][ which started with 2001.
5:42 a.m.
New subject: Historical Research
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Marvin wrote:
One of the things *I* think would be really useful for
collectors is to
know the number of computers manufactured, both total and by year. The
only problem is in getting this information; anyone have any ideas,
insights, or better yet, connections to past people who would know or be
able to get this information from companies that have ceased business?
Thanks.
I would definitely like to know this information also. It does help in
determine what a system is worth to you, since if you know how rare or
unrare it is you can have a better idea of what to offer someone for it.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
1:55 a.m.
New subject: Apple II hardware design
Signetic (I think it was them) had some PAL like
devices back in the
mid-1970s. I do not think they were as flexible as PALs, but they did
combine the best of the PROM and glue worlds for decoding schemes.
Ah yes. The 82S100 and related devices. They were less flexible than later
PALs in that there were no flip-flops on the outputs and no internal
feedback terms, but were more flexible in that you could program both the
AND matrix (like a PAL) and the OR matrix (to decide how many (and which)
product terms to use for each output).
William Donzelli
--
-tony
ard12(a)eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
23 Jun
23 Jun
3:13 p.m.
New subject: Apple II hardware design
Well, lets see... Does anyone know when the
74LS68x series came out? Were
they around when the Apple ][ was current. PALs were sort-of current, and
I guess a 14L4 would be an ideal address decoder.
Ah - if you think of 74LS68x and 14L4's as "current" with the introduction
If you insist
I stick to 'classic' TTL then I'd want a 74LS133 13 input
NAND gate, and a couple of 74LS04 inverters. That would decode just about
any combination of 13 address lines. If you want all 16, then add a
74LS138 for a total of 4 chip max (and you might get away with only one
'04 if you're lucky.
Remember, 4 more chips increases the chip count on a Disk ][ by 50
percent!
If you don't like having the traditional slot addresses predecoded,
you've always been able to do your own decoding. The resulting
cards won't be compatible with the existing scheme of slot
addressing, so you better write your own operating systems and
languages so that the users can use your new devices :-)
I dislike the idea of geographical addressing which limits the number of
slots you can have, and means the user has to know which slot things are
in. I didn't like the bank-switching scheme for the ROMs on the I/O cards,
but as address space was tight (although a lot was wasted by those
addressable latches used as 'soft switches), I guess nothing else was
possible.
Tim.
--
-tony
ard12(a)eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
7:42 p.m.
New subject: Apple II hardware design
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, A.R. Duell wrote:
You even bother with ideas? I don't even know what I'm going to write
when I sit down at the computer. I just start typing and the program
practically writes itself. This happens < 1 minute! Beat that with your
silly soldering iron! :)
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
Depends on
your forte. Mine happens to be software. I'll bet I can
write the software faster than you can solder the board. HOWEVER, I'll
I wouldn't bet on it.... I've been known to go from idea to working
prototype in < 1 day.
22 Jun
22 Jun
8:25 a.m.
New subject: Hams who collect
I see a number of references to people who get things at hamfests,
swapfests, and other amateur radio type events. As such, I was just
curious who out there has their amateur radio license. I have one and
my call is KE6HTS.
The Santa Barbara Amateur Radio Club (of which I am currently VP of
Training and Education) will be having a bazaar on Saturday, July 12th
from 9AM to about noon. If anyone is interested in
attending, let me
know and I will forward the directions. Hmmm, I think there is
information on the SBARC Web page, http://www.sbarc.org.
Generally speaking, things are sold at whatever price during the first
hour, half that for the second hour, free for the taking during the last
hour, and free to intecept as the remains are carried to the dumpster.
They have quite a few older computers (condition unknown) including the
NCR PC-8 (which I have already interecepted), A SpectraGraphics CAD
setup with at least four workstations and a bunch of stuff I am not
familiar with. The PCs, PS/2s, and similar stuff will probably be
available for the taking. I would like to see the SpectraGraphics stuff
saved as well, but I am out of space for the moment.
8:29 a.m.
New subject: Hams who collect
Marvin wrote:
The Santa Barbara Amateur Radio Club (of which I am currently VP of
Training and Education) will be having a bazaar on Saturday, July 12th
from 9AM to about noon. If anyone is interested in attending, let me
know and I will forward the directions. Hmmm, I think there is
information on the SBARC Web page, http://www.sbarc.org.
I stand corrected, I just checked the page and nothing to speak of about
the Bazaar.
2:33 p.m.
New subject: Hams who collect
I see a number of references to people who get things at hamfests,
swapfests, and other amateur radio type events. As such, I was just
curious who out there has their amateur radio license. I have one and
my call is KE6HTS.
G1XPF here. That's a 'Class B' license, roughly the equivalent of a
no-code tech in the States.
But, at least in the UK, people without an amateur radio license are
welcome at radio rallies (hamfests), etc. Sometimes you'll be asked for a
callsign (particularly if you want the seller to hold something for you to
pick up later, or for identification if you're paying by cheque), but you
can always claim to be a short-wave listener (SWL). I did that for a
couple of rallies, got interested in the hobby, and got my license.
--
-tony
ard12(a)eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
23 Jun
23 Jun
3:47 a.m.
New subject: Hams who collect
I see a number of references to people who get things at hamfests,
swapfests, and other amateur radio type events. As such, I was just
curious who out there has their amateur radio license. I have one and
my call is KE6HTS.
G1XPF here. That's a 'Class B' license, roughly the equivalent of a
no-code tech in the States.
But, at least in the UK, people without an amateur radio license are
welcome at radio rallies (hamfests), etc. Sometimes you'll be asked for a
callsign (particularly if you want the seller to hold something for you to
pick up later, or for identification if you're paying by cheque), but you
can always claim to be a short-wave listener (SWL). I did that for a
couple of rallies, got interested in the hobby, and got my license.
7:48 a.m.
New subject: Hams who collect
KF9VP here, sorting through 200+ messages from the list.
I must admit, I've found most of my computers at hamfests, but things have
been getting rather rare (and sporadic) lately.
1:54 p.m.
New subject: Hams who collect
KF9VP here, sorting through 200+ messages from the list.
I must admit, I've found most of my computers at hamfests, but things have
been getting rather rare (and sporadic) lately.
Yes, about 5 years ago there was a peak (in the UK) of classic computers
turning up at rallies. The last couple of rallies I've been to have been
rather disapointing - a lot of modern-ish PC's (486's, etc), and very few
machines of interest. I did pick up a few interesting bits (including a
Sharp machine that seems to have run MS-DOS (or possibly CP/M86) but which
certianly wasn't a PC-clone), but the really interesting stuff (boxes of
DEC boards, Intellecs, S100 stuff, etc) seems to be no more.
Still, keep looking. You never know what will turn up next...
8 Jul
8 Jul
2:54 p.m.
New subject: Hams who collect
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, Marvin wrote:
I see a number of references to people who get things
at hamfests,
swapfests, and other amateur radio type events. As such, I was just
curious who out there has their amateur radio license. I have one and
my call is KE6HTS.
I'm N6YMK, coded Tech.
Sometimes I hit the TRW swapmeet in Manhattan Beach, last Sat. of each
month, and find all sorts of old computers (mostly either old micros and
the like.)
3:11 p.m.
New subject: Laser 50 ????
Howdy folks:
Well, as I've posted a couple of times in the past, I am re-posting my
interest in an old children's beginner computer called the Laser 50. I am
seriously looking for one for my daughter. Not really a classic computer,
although it is from about 1984, but still a fun little 'toy'. It is about
the size of a small laptop, has BASIC on board, about 1.5 k expandable to
something like 17 or 18 k, able to hook up a printer and/or cassette
interface, and was created by V-tech who still make kids computers.
PLEASE let me know if any of you have one of these things lying around, or
know where I might be able to find one!!
Thank you,
CORD COSLOR
//*=====================================================================++
|| Cord G. Coslor P.O. Box 308 - 1300 3rd St. Apt "M1" -- Peru, NE ||
|| (402) 872- 3272 coslor(a)bobcat.peru.edu 68421-0308 ||
|| Classic computer software and hardware collector ||
|| Autograph collector ||
++=====================================================================*//
3:12 p.m.
New subject: Hams who collect
Charles P. Hobbs wrote:
I'm N6YMK, coded Tech.
Sometimes I hit the TRW swapmeet in Manhattan Beach, last Sat. of each
month, and find all sorts of old computers (mostly either old micros and
the like.)
TRW is where I recently found the Xerox 820 and documentation. Other
machines I have gotten down there include the APL/80, Tandy 6000, and
several Wang computers. I'm generally down there every month and look
for good deals. Unfortunately, I only see them a couple of times per
year. One machine I would like to get (and have seen several times down
there) is a Commodore portable of some sort. However what I am willing
to pay and what people have been asking differ by quite a bit :). I've
seen quite a few C-64s and some Radio Shack Model Is, but I have enough
of them and have turned them down. The Heathkit H-8 I just got was at
the CMRA swapmeet held at Devry on (I think) the third Saturday of the
month.
If you are down sat the TRW swap meet, give me a call as either I or
some friends monitor 146.790 simplex (output frequency of a Santa
Barbara local repeater.)
Marvin, KE6HTS
9 Jul
9 Jul
2:47 a.m.
New subject: Hams who collect
Charles P. Hobbs Wrote:
I'm N6YMK, coded Tech.
Sometimes I hit the TRW swapmeet in Manhattan Beach, last Sat. of each
month, and find all sorts of old computers (mostly either old micros and
the like.)
Gawd, how I miss that. I lived in LA for 12 years, and I think I got
most of my best classic stuff from there. I also got burned pretty
bad there too. Mostly on supposedly "good" disk drives. It got to
the point where I *refused* to buy drives there.
I remember once seeing a Pascal MicroEngine there! Although, that
*was* in 1984 . . .
Jeff
KH6JJN
22 Jun
22 Jun
12:04 p.m.
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, A.R. Duell wrote:
Blasphemer! No really though, if you must call the Disk ][ controller a
kludge, at least qualify it by calling it a beautiful kludge, which it is.
Also, having software control over the disk drive is not a bad thing at
all. It allowed you to play directly with the bits on the disks and make
your own disk formats. It provided years of fun and challenge during my
teenage days trying to crack the ever-more-complicated disk copy
protection schemes that the software houses kept creating by way of being
able to control the disk circuitry from software.
Tony, any information you can e-mail me or send me concerning the
Sorcerer would be appreciated. I need information about the power
requirements, plus just general information such as how much RAM it came
with, processor type, built-in languages, etc. Thanks.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
from, there
are compnents of computers that are shear art as the disk
controller in the apple II (from what I read the board was drawn 'not
I'll have to disagree with you there. IMHO the Disk II controller is
nothing other than a kludge. It could certainly have done with a track 0
sensor (that would have stopped the heads from banging on start-up). And,
as a hardware designer, I don't like designs where most of the
functionality is handled in software. totally in the
dark about). Case in point, Exidy Sorceror, I purchased
one and sent it to Sam Ismael, he is now looking for information, not
very many people ever seen one, much less an ad for one, sometimes the
Somewhere I have a Techref for the Sorceror, and one for the S100 adapter
for it. I also have some user group newsletters, etc. Feel free to pester
me on this list if you want me to dig this stuff out.
BTW, it's not up for grabs. I need it to maintain my Sorceror :-)
23 Jun
23 Jun
2:08 a.m.
[Disk II]
Blasphemer! No really though, if you must call the
Disk ][ controller a
:-)
kludge, at least qualify it by calling it a beautiful
kludge, which it is.
Well, I'll agree it's a minimalist design. Beauty, however, is in the eye
of the beholder.
Tony, any information you can e-mail me or send me
concerning the
Sorcerer would be appreciated. I need information about the power
requirements, plus just general information such as how much RAM it came
with, processor type, built-in languages, etc. Thanks.
I thought the Sorceror had an internal mains PSU and you just plugged it
in. I will check before you apply 110V (or 240V) to the 5V line, though.
The processor was a Z80.
The only built-in 'language' was a machine code monitor. Basic and other
software - I have a text editor/word processor somewhere - were in ROM
cartridges that plugged into the side of the machine. These cartridges
were, in fact 8-track tape cases with a little PCB inside them.
Sam
--
-tony
ard12(a)eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
22 Jun
22 Jun
2:26 p.m.
At 08:51 PM 6/22/97 BST, you wrote:
Ok, as much as I've tried to restrain myself from getting drawn into any of
these 'no-win' threads, I'm going to toss out some comments here. Be
warned however, I'm not going to spend a lot of follow-up time trying to
defend or explain my positions, so take them for what they are worth.
(exactly what you paid for them!)
[SOAPBOX MODE ON!] you *have* been warned!
First: there has been a good bit of going on about how bad various designs
are or were. (latest example above) My take: it's all a pointless waste
of bandwidth! It's all too easy to look back on designs and decisions that
are 20+ years old and declare them to be "bad" or "deficient", or
whatever
your favourite derogatory phrase is, but if you were around then and so
darn advanced in design and implementation, why didn't you jump in with the
"better" design, make *lots* of money, and bump Bill Gates off his throne?
When the Apple Disk II came out, most of us in the business at the time
were amazed that a disk controller could be fully implemented (from a
hardware standpoint) in only 8 chips (!) *none* of which had more than 16
legs! Before you go snarfing about how "bad" it is, look at what else was
available during the same period! 50 to 80 chips, LSI contoller chips,
power regulators, and still a pot of supporting software!
Or the original Altair design. Yes, it was less than "optimal". If you
knew the history behind it, you would know that the cpu baord design was
copied almost verbatim from the Intel 8080 design books. What else was out
there at the time? Updates and changes were published generally as they
were worked out. Does that make the unit "bad"? Or the designers of the
time "stupid"? Gee, where *were* the "experts" in 8080 system design
in
1975??? If the designs in the Intel books were so "bad", obviously *they*
did not have too many experts either!
Next: there seems to be a *lot* of thrashing over these percieved
cross-national/cultural/"it takes too long to get a reply"/"why are you
ignoring me" 'slights'. My take: BULL! A mailing list is like a group of
voulenteers, they do what they can, when they can, and *if* they want!
Sorry if you don't like this, but I see on average 130-150 messages a DAY
I think that
may be personal views by individual collectors and not by
the group in whole. Some feel that not having 'original parts' or
add-ons is blasphmey. I can understand and appreciate where you come
Hmmm... I see nothing wrong with replacing components in a system - that,
to me, is a natural thing that would have happened to the machine when it
was in use. I can understand people who feel differently, though.
from, there are compnents of computers that are
shear art as the disk
controller in the apple II (from what I read the board was drawn 'not
I'll have to disagree with you there. IMHO the Disk II controller is
nothing other than a kludge. It could certainly have done with a track 0
sensor (that would have stopped the heads from banging on start-up). And,
as a hardware designer, I don't like designs where most of the
functionality is handled in software. from this list and the others that I *need* to review
for my real life job,
and I can't always get to every thing that passes by my
screen! Not that I
*should* either. I tend *not* to comment on things that I don't have a
fair knowledge base on. I suspect a lot of people on this list operate in
a similar fashion.
If I have something to say on a topic, I will if I have time or I might
file it away in my "to do" file and get back to it later.
Do I forget messages from time to time, yes. Do I decide to just not
answer a message from time to time, yes. Am I going to waste a lot of time
feeling guilty about it? NO! Unless I missed something in the lists
charter, *no one* here is *obligated* to do *anything*!
Same with selling/trading/shipping gear. If it is worth it *to me*, I'll
do it. If not, sorry but its my choice! I don't much care who you are,
where you are, or what you want! (hell, I've turned down offers from Bill
Gates!)
*If* it is worthwhile to me, and I believe that I can get the item to/from
a point intact, fine. I'll probably do it. If not, thanks for the
interest and have a nice day. If you don't like it and want to start a
flame war, go right ahead but you will do it *without* me! (for the most
part)
(trying to calm down now...)
Let's get this list back to its intended purpose. If people want to bicker
over procedures, policies, or who offended who, take it to alt.flame, take
it offline or take it private! I for one don't want to waste time wading
through the politics and drivel!
No one *has* to be here, and if things don't start calming down and getting
back on track, soon no one will...
[SOAPBOX MODE OFF]
-jim
---
jimw(a)agora.rdrop.com
The Computer Garage - http://www.rdrop.com/~jimw
Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174
7:37 p.m.
Jim Willing wrote:
*If* it is worthwhile to me, and I believe that I can
get the item to/from
a point intact, fine. I'll probably do it. If not, thanks for the
interest and have a nice day. If you don't like it and want to start a
flame war, go right ahead but you will do it *without* me! (for the most
part)
(trying to calm down now...)
I am sorry, I did not want to answer anymore about this, BUT I must
point out that, obviously, I did not make myself clear enough. I never
said the things contained in your message (which I cut down to just one
phrase). The whole point was NOT about shipping but about your cultural
approach to collecting...but let's get down to business now (collecting
that is).
I am calm but disappointed...
enrico
23 Jun
23 Jun
4:58 a.m.
I have 2 sets of RX02s. I just thought that the way the top board had a
hinge on it was neat. Never saw it as a work of art... Hmm... :)
10027
days inactive
10044
days old
52 comments
18 participants
participants (18)
-
ard12＠eng.cam.ac.uk -
coslor＠pscosf.peru.edu -
danjo＠xnet.com -
dastar＠crl.com -
dseagrav＠bsdserver.tek-star.net -
e.tedeschi＠ndirect.co.uk -
eric＠fudge.uchicago.edu -
foxnhare＠goldrush.com -
gram＠cnct.com -
jeff.kaneko＠ifrsys.com -
jeffh＠unix.aardvarkol.com -
jimw＠agora.rdrop.com -
marvin＠rain.org -
rws＠eagle.ais.net -
shoppa＠alph02.triumf.ca -
spc＠armigeron.com -
transit＠primenet.com -
william＠ans.net