12 Aug
2012
12 Aug
'12
11:18 a.m.
There's a lot to that report. It is also only
dealing with semiconductor devices. While semiconductors are a crucial component, they are
not the only one.
Yes, but it is basically the first thing I found (and being tired
after going to the Kagan memorial, I was not about to make a big
project about it). The point is that Ian wanted a citation, so I gave
him one, in less than a minute's worth of Google.
There are similar studies on other components and materials,
certainly. Even the paint industry has its own bushel of studies about
paint aging. I will leave the discovery of those to you guys.
The problem is that none of these documents are
studies on conservation. The way I see it, this is still in its larval form. Only 70 years
ago these machines hadn't even been invented yet, that is within the life span of
quite a few people who are still around. We just don't know how best to preserve a
computer. The world needs data.
Very, true, but we can make some very good guesses on how to preserve
these machines. At least with the modern materials found in computers
- materials that "normal" museums do not have to deal with -
conservators can look to the bushels of engineering reliability
studies, like that Panasonic one I pointed out, for some guidance. It
is not shooting in the dark.
The only way to get data is to do our best, and try
different strategies. There are many very clever people on this list and elsewhere. With
enough effort, anything can be made and replaced. It's going to be a crapshoot either
way until we've had more experience with this stuff.
Yes, we need more data on this. But, one way to certainly taint that
data is to keep using the materials (keep running the machines).
It's not necessary to convey the experience
exactly. But an approximation can give people the feel of what it was like.
Yes, and this is why simulations and living museums, like the Living
Computer Museum, are good as well. For the time being, until we can
have our perfect virtual reality simulators, having a running machine
in a raised floor room is the best we can do, but it uses the artifact
and changes what it is (I am not sure I want to get into a "historic
fabric" fight with anyone at this point). Those changes can not be
reversed, no matter what anyone says.
This is why it is good to have machines that are in museums, preserved
and not run at all. Everyone, please do not hate on the museums that
preserve the machines by not running them - they have a point for
doing so.
--
Will
12 Aug
12 Aug
11:47 a.m.
Yes, we need more data on this. But, one way to
certainly
taint that data is to keep using the materials (keep running
the machines).
I think though that for many machine your recent comparison with Inca (was
it Inca?) pottery and other archaeology is not especially relevant. I doubt
if we have any working drawings, or other written documentation on how these
machines work.
For many computers such as the IBM 1130, the PDP-8 and even the ICT 1301 we
have copious documentation, drawings, records, photographs and software. We
understand the technology and contraction of these machines in intimate
detail. Given sufficient funds we could, as with the Manchester Mk1 (Baby)
produce modern replicas of these machines. Some such as the IBM 1130, would
be expensive to replicate as it used IBM SLT "Hybrid" circuits and cartridge
disks, but I am sure there is enough information available to clone the
thing. Given this what on earth can we hop to learn by leaving the thing in
a corner to decay.
It's not
necessary to convey the experience exactly. But an
approximation can give people the feel of what it was like.
Yes, and this is why simulations and living museums, like the
Living Computer Museum, are good as well. For the time being,
until we can have our perfect virtual reality simulators,
having a running machine in a raised floor room is the best
we can do, but it uses the artifact and changes what it is (I
am not sure I want to get into a "historic fabric" fight with
anyone at this point). Those changes can not be reversed, no
matter what anyone says.
This is why it is good to have machines that are in museums,
preserved and not run at all. Everyone, please do not hate on
the museums that preserve the machines by not running them -
they have a point for doing so.
--
Will
Dave
12:43 p.m.
I think though that for many machine your recent
comparison with Inca (was
it Inca?) pottery and other archaeology is not especially relevant.
Then you missed the point. And no, I was the one that compared it
early archeologists trashing village sites to get to the kings, and
how they destroyed sites that we really wish we had today.
I doubt
if we have any working drawings, or other written documentation on how these
machines work.
Correct, and we wish we did. Archaeology is, honestly, mostly educated
guesses on what little hard evidence we have.
For many computers such as the IBM 1130, the PDP-8 and
even the ICT 1301 we
have copious documentation, drawings, records, photographs and software. We
understand the technology and contraction of these machines in intimate
detail.
No we do not.
Certain information normally does not show up in the information you
list. Specifically, things related to the actually manufacture of the
machines. Very little documentation points out how the machines were
built, preferred vendors, subtle (or not so subtle) design flaws,
normal wear during expected lifetime, and so forth. For example - can
you tell me what brands of tubes IBM used in their mainframes, and why
RCA somehow was dropped from their preferred vendors list? Why did
Tung Sol and GE beat them? And who made the tube sockets? Amphenol?
EBY? AMP? Cinch? Who was preferred there?
Who cares, you ask - such a minor issue, right?
Well, this is where you missed the point. We do not know what future
scholars will be interested in studying with these machines. In the
future, when the architecture and software of some machine are pretty
well studied out, there will be people looking to dig deeper, and
learn in depth about things today we see as mundane. But, by using
machines, you will destroy somethings that could be very valuable
evidence to these future scholars.
Given sufficient funds we could, as with the
Manchester Mk1 (Baby)
produce modern replicas of these machines. Some such as the IBM 1130, would
be expensive to replicate as it used IBM SLT "Hybrid" circuits and cartridge
disks, but I am sure there is enough information available to clone the
thing.
Clones are never perfect in the real world. These clones would not be
able to capture many of the subtle nuances of the manufacturing
processes of old. In many cases, clone makers take shortcuts, and may
not document these properly, nor understand the consequences.
I would concede this point if care was taken to
preserve machines that were
not run. However in my experience machines that are not used, and considered
as "un-useable" are often not looked after either.
Sort of like most machines in private hands, right? You are including
those in your survey, right?
Yes, there are some museums that do not take care of things, just like
many collectors. But, if you look at the big players in the computer
museum field, you will find that they keep their holdings in secure,
climate controlled areas, and as resources become available, proper
stabilization is done.
But their seems to be this problem that the museums that are not
caring for their holdings somehow give ALL museums this bad
reputation. That is not right.
I believe that it
needs to be an active process and the condition of the artefacts must be
monitored and recorded, and if decay occurs action taken.
Conservation 101, first day of class.
--
Will
1:11 p.m.
On 12 Aug 2012 at 12:43, William Donzelli wrote:
Clones are never perfect in the real world. These
clones would not be
able to capture many of the subtle nuances of the manufacturing
processes of old. In many cases, clone makers take shortcuts, and may
not document these properly, nor understand the consequences.
I'll make one of the arguments I often make with the music people who
insist on "authentic performance" of old music (e.g. Renaissance,
Baroque, Classical).
The least perfect instrument used in a recreation is the audience.
We have been conditioned by our own time to the extent that our
notions of rhythm, harmony and even tuning. The old tunings sound
strange to us; we have no idea how Bach or Mozart performed their
works--all we can do is guess. And we guess with our own ears
conditioned by our own modern experiences.
All we can hope for is to capture a ghost of the experience.
The same obtains, I suspect, with attempting to create a authentic
experience with old iron. Today's audience has grown up in a world
where the computer's presence penetrates every corner of existence.
To the user of a 7090, computers were rare things. Watching a
printer create printed output from instructions punched into cards
was magical. The 7090 was FAST for the time--now, even the lowliest
mobile phone has a faster CPU.
To someone born yesterday, can a really authentic old iron experience
ever be created? I doubt it.
--Chuck
1:23 p.m.
That's a good question. While computers are ubiquitous, machines like the 7090 are, if
anything, even rarer than they were back then. They are very different beasts from what we
use today, or will use 20 years from now. Same goes for punch cards.
I'm inclined to believe that the experience of writing a program, punching the cards,
and running it will be just as magical.
--------
Paul Anderson -- VE3HOP
On 2012-08-12, at 1:11 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
To someone born yesterday, can a really authentic old iron experience
ever be created? I doubt it.
--Chuck
1:57 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Anderson" <wackyvorlon at me.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: To all with interest in preservation
That's a good question. While computers are
ubiquitous, machines like the
7090 are, if anything, even rarer than they were back then. They are very
different beasts from what we use today, or will use 20 years from now.
Same goes for punch cards.
I'm inclined to believe that the experience of writing a program, punching
the cards, and running it will be just as magical.
Why would you think somebody who was not around during the time of punch
cards would find that method of input magical? Do you think some kid who
programs a huge GPS controlled harvester out in the huge farms would think
hooking up a plow to an ox is magical? Most people go to museums and thank
GOD they don't have to do things like they did back in the old days and look
forward to new ways of doing things that will cut down the time and energy
they need to expend (or better yet just let a machine do it all), that to
them is magical.
2:19 p.m.
While punch cards have been around for a long time, they were never ubiquitous. Why should
someone alive now, using a punchcard for the first time, be any different from someone in
1950 using punchcards for the first time?
The old machines are far enough removed from modern experience that they aren't very
comparable to the average person.
--------
Paul Anderson -- VE3HOP
On 2012-08-12, at 1:57 PM, TeoZ <teoz at neo.rr.com> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Anderson" <wackyvorlon at
me.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: To all with interest in preservation
That's a good question. While computers are
ubiquitous, machines like the 7090 are, if anything, even rarer than they were back then.
They are very different beasts from what we use today, or will use 20 years from now. Same
goes for punch cards.
I'm inclined to believe that the experience of writing a program, punching the cards,
and running it will be just as magical.
Why would you think somebody who was not around during the time of punch cards would find
that method of input magical? Do you think some kid who programs a huge GPS controlled
harvester out in the huge farms would think hooking up a plow to an ox is magical? Most
people go to museums and thank GOD they don't have to do things like they did back in
the old days and look forward to new ways of doing things that will cut down the time and
energy they need to expend (or better yet just let a machine do it all), that to them is
magical.
2:26 p.m.
Why would you think somebody who was not around during
the time of punch
cards would find that method of input magical? Do you think some kid who
programs a huge GPS controlled harvester out in the huge farms would think
hooking up a plow to an ox is magical?
Ironically, one of the *very* recent last uses of punch cards was for
the USDA, for cotton bales.
--
Will
2:45 p.m.
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, William Donzelli wrote:
Ironically, one of the *very* recent last uses of
punch cards was for
the USDA, for cotton bales.
Our college system used them for years as blank stock for printing small
forms, such as "ADD Cards", etc. Then they switched over to three part
forms. When they did, they dumpstered ALL of the blank cards, AND came
around to the CIS department and hauled away our cabinets of punched cards
(mostly 1620 and 1401 software) over our objections. They were
conscientious. One instructor was using some card file cabinets for
storing ISA 5150 cards. They hauled away one of his cabinets full, but
dumped the contents of the other one onto the floor when they took it
away. They later tried to fire him for retrieving things from dumpsters.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
2.00
3:13 p.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
I posted some 1980's vintage HP3000 marketing shots at
Flicker:?http://flic.kr/s/aHsjBmrAyC
Enjoy!
?
Lee Courtney
13 Aug
13 Aug
11:33 p.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Lee Courtney
<charlesleecourtney at yahoo.com> wrote:
I posted some 1980's vintage HP3000 marketing
shots at Flicker: http://flic.kr/s/aHsjBmrAyC
Enjoy!
Lee - thanks for posting these. Especially love the datacenter scenes
with the gobs of 9-track and pack drives. And there are some bizarro
terminals (the little ones with the shrouds) that I've never seen
before.
--
jht
14 Aug
14 Aug
12:08 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 8/13/2012 8:33 PM, Jason T wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Lee Courtney
<charlesleecourtney at yahoo.com> wrote:
Being a little young to have actually in data centers like these but,
having worked with some of the gear later and worked in more modern data
centers, how are they working in all that noise ? I realize these are ad
shots but, all the the normal operation shots make it look like that is
how it was done. Well, minus any women of course.
How loud was it really ? Say in something like this
http://www.computersciencelab.com/ComputerHistory/HtmlHelp/Images2/IBM7094.…
I've never seen much soundproofing on mainframe gear so, I assume it
must have been really loud in there.
I posted some 1980's vintage HP3000 marketing
shots at Flicker: http://flic.kr/s/aHsjBmrAyC
Enjoy!
Lee - thanks for posting these. Especially love the datacenter scenes
with the gobs of 9-track and pack drives. And there are some bizarro
terminals (the little ones with the shrouds) that I've never seen
before.
12:28 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 08/14/2012 12:08 AM, mc68010 wrote:
Being a little young to have actually in data centers
like these but,
having worked with some of the gear later and worked in more modern data
centers, how are they working in all that noise ? I realize these are ad
shots but, all the the normal operation shots make it look like that is
how it was done. Well, minus any women of course.
How loud was it really ? Say in something like this
http://www.computersciencelab.com/ComputerHistory/HtmlHelp/Images2/IBM7094.…
I've never seen much soundproofing on mainframe gear so, I assume it
must have been really loud in there.
With all those 729 magtape drives? Deafening.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
12:45 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
Dave McGuire wrote:
On 08/14/2012 12:08 AM, mc68010 wrote:
I always liked the sound of the vacuum coming on after mounting the tape
and the satisfying Shhhh, FOOP then the tape advancing to the BOT marks.
Of course, if it didn't mount, you got that disappointing POP, flap flap
flap as the tape went into the column and the vacuum fans shut down.
-jim
Being a little young to have actually in data
centers like these but,
having worked with some of the gear later and worked in more modern data
centers, how are they working in all that noise ? I realize these are ad
shots but, all the the normal operation shots make it look like that is
how it was done. Well, minus any women of course.
How loud was it really ? Say in something like this
http://www.computersciencelab.com/ComputerHistory/HtmlHelp/Images2/IBM7094.…
I've never seen much soundproofing on mainframe gear so, I assume it
must have been really loud in there.
With all those 729 magtape drives?
Deafening.
-Dave
12:54 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 08/14/2012 12:45 AM, jimpdavis wrote:
I always liked the sound of the vacuum coming on after mounting the tape
and the satisfying Shhhh, FOOP then the tape advancing to the BOT marks.
Of course, if it didn't mount, you got that disappointing POP, flap flap
flap as the tape went into the column and the vacuum fans shut down.
Yes, sounds like an overgrown coffee percolator gone horribly,
horribly wrong! :-)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Being a little young to have actually in data centers
like these but,
having worked with some of the gear later and worked in more modern data
centers, how are they working in all that noise ? I realize these are ad
shots but, all the the normal operation shots make it look like that is
how it was done. Well, minus any women of course.
How loud was it really ? Say in something like this
http://www.computersciencelab.com/ComputerHistory/HtmlHelp/Images2/IBM7094.…
I've never seen much soundproofing on mainframe gear so, I assume it
must have been really loud in there.
With all those 729 magtape drives?
Deafening.
1:14 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 8/13/2012 9:28 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
With all those 729 magtape drives? Deafening. -Dave
Now days people often put on hearing protection before for going into
the racks. The density is so much greater now though. It is insanely
loud. I just look at these pictures and wonder how it compares. That is
still a lot of fans and machines grinding away. Everyone always looks so
calm and like it isn't in the pictures though. Looks like they can talk
normally and not have to scream.
2:06 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 13 Aug 2012 at 22:14, mc68010 wrote:
Now days people often put on hearing protection before
for going into
the racks. The density is so much greater now though. It is insanely
loud. I just look at these pictures and wonder how it compares. That
is still a lot of fans and machines grinding away. Everyone always
looks so calm and like it isn't in the pictures though. Looks like
they can talk normally and not have to scream.
Not scream, but raise your voice somewhat. I'd say that the constant
noise component was in the 80-85 dB range. Some folks used to wear
those yellow foam sound-deadening earplugs if an extended stay was
anticipated. We had a big open box of them in the office.
It wasn't so much that it was bad for your hearing, but it was like
slowly boiling your nerves, at least for me.
--Chuck
2:07 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
mc68010 wrote:
On 8/13/2012 9:28 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Having worked in a server / rack environment, I would say that the niose
level is way higher than in the raised floor days.
The rack noise is a loud, unchanging roar, with occasional punctuation
of chillers moving up and down a notch.
Back then, the noise in the machine room was aurally interesting and
gave you a clue to when things ran off the tracks.
Line printers are most notable.When a AWOL job starts slewing paper with
a single character printed per-page, That was your problem.
-jim.
With all those 729 magtape drives? Deafening.
-Dave
Now days people often put on hearing protection before for going into
the racks. The density is so much greater now though. It is insanely
loud. I just look at these pictures and wonder how it compares. That
is still a lot of fans and machines grinding away. Everyone always
looks so calm and like it isn't in the pictures though. Looks like
they can talk normally and not have to scream.
3:01 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 08/14/2012 01:14 AM, mc68010 wrote:
On 8/13/2012 9:28 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Nobody I know does that, and I certainly don't.
With all those 729 magtape drives? Deafening.
-Dave
Now days people often put on hearing protection before for going into
the racks. The density is so much greater now though. It is
insanely
loud. I just look at these pictures and wonder how it compares. That is
still a lot of fans and machines grinding away. Everyone always looks so
calm and like it isn't in the pictures though. Looks like they can talk
normally and not have to scream.
It is definitely different now. We went from a small number of very
large machines (with large-diameter, slower-turning fans) to a very
large number of very small machines (with tiny, screaming high-pitched
fans).
Now of course, with virtualization, the pendulum is swinging back the
other way, at least somewhat. I'm seeing fewer and fewer 1U machines in
racks, and more and more 3U-5U machines in their place, each replacing
twenty or thirty of the 1U machines.
And they have bigger slower-turning fans. :)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
4:06 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 8/14/2012 12:01 AM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 08/14/2012 01:14 AM, mc68010 wrote:
I know colo where people wear the big airport looking headsets when they
are going back there for awhile. We're talking many hundred to thousands
of rack servers in a giant cement room. Sure you aren't going to die or
anything but, it ain't good for your ears either. If you have to scream
at the guy ten feet away it's probably loud enough to use some sort of
hearing protection. If you're back there for 20 minutes who cares.
Probably still isn't great for your ears but, whatever.
That's what made me wonder about the sound level in these old pictures
with people working at their desks calmly like they were in any old
office. I've been around similar gear one piece at a time and they were
pretty loud. Still the frequency of the sound is much lower though.
Might make it much easier to take. These small high rpm fans are
piercing. I could never imagine sitting at a desk answering a phone
among them.
On 8/13/2012 9:28 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Nobody I know does that, and I certainly don't.
With all those 729 magtape drives? Deafening.
-Dave
Now days people often put on hearing protection before for going into
the racks.
4:35 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 08/14/2012 04:06 AM, mc68010 wrote:
Nobody I know does that, and I certainly don't.
I know colo where people wear the big airport looking headsets when they
are going back there for awhile. We're talking many hundred to thousands
of rack servers in a giant cement room. Sure you aren't going to die or
anything but, it ain't good for your ears either. If you have to scream
at the guy ten feet away it's probably loud enough to use some sort of
hearing protection. If you're back there for 20 minutes who cares.
Probably still isn't great for your ears but, whatever.
That's what made me wonder about the sound level in these old pictures
with people working at their desks calmly like they were in any old
office. I've been around similar gear one piece at a time and they were
pretty loud. Still the frequency of the sound is much lower though.
Might make it much easier to take. These small high rpm fans are
piercing.
The pitch plays a big part of it. I never got a headache in "big fan"
machine rooms, but I sometimes do in "hundreds of 1U machines" machine
rooms. It's not like it kills you...those are probably the same guys
who wear goggles to mow the lawn. (or their bosses are just that
paranoid) Having a headache is, for me at least, far preferable to
having sweaty hair and ears from wearing a headset.
With all those
729 magtape drives? Deafening. -Dave
Now days people often put on hearing
protection before for going into
the racks. I could never imagine sitting at a desk answering a
phone
among them.
That's just not possible. In some datacenters we had special phones
with high-volume headsets and focused microphones.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
9:07 p.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 8/14/12 3:35 AM, Dave McGuire wrote:
The pitch plays a big part of it. I never got a
headache in "big fan"
machine rooms, but I sometimes do in "hundreds of 1U machines" machine
rooms. It's not like it kills you...those are probably the same guys
who wear goggles to mow the lawn. (or their bosses are just that
paranoid) Having a headache is, for me at least, far preferable to
having sweaty hair and ears from wearing a headset.
I always wear safety glasses mowing the lawn.
It reduces the allergy agony like you wouldn't believe.
Re the hundreds of 1U servers - I used to work on a drilling rig
where the noise level was constantly very high - huge unbaffled diesels,
air compressors, and chain-gear noise, and while it certainly damaged my
hearing, it was never actively unpleasant.
Working in a colo or datacenter where there are a lot of 1U and 2U
boxes makes me want to scream in a matter of minutes.
Doc
9:26 p.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
I have permanent tinnitus (ringing ears) from machine rooms in the 60's,
70's and 80's with some permanent hearing impairment.
WEAR EAR PROTECTION.
(And I do wear ear inserts for mowing the lawn, too, now -- but not eye
goggles.)
On 8/14/2012 8:07 PM, Doc Shipley wrote:
On 8/14/12 3:35 AM, Dave McGuire wrote:
The pitch plays a big part of it. I never got
a headache in "big
fan"
machine rooms, but I sometimes do in "hundreds of 1U machines" machine
rooms. It's not like it kills you...those are probably the same guys
who wear goggles to mow the lawn. (or their bosses are just that
paranoid) Having a headache is, for me at least, far preferable to
having sweaty hair and ears from wearing a headset.
I always wear safety glasses mowing the lawn.
It reduces the allergy agony like you wouldn't believe.
Re the hundreds of 1U servers - I used to work on a drilling rig
where the noise level was constantly very high - huge unbaffled
diesels, air compressors, and chain-gear noise, and while it certainly
damaged my hearing, it was never actively unpleasant.
Working in a colo or datacenter where there are a lot of 1U and 2U
boxes makes me want to scream in a matter of minutes.
Doc
9:44 p.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 8/14/2012 6:26 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
I have permanent tinnitus (ringing ears) from machine
rooms in the
60's, 70's and 80's with some permanent hearing impairment.
WEAR EAR PROTECTION.
(And I do wear ear inserts for mowing the lawn, too, now -- but not
eye goggles.)
I wonder if the IT field doesn't need something like the pro hearing
protection campaigns they did in the late 90's for musicians.
10:35 a.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
>> Now days people often put on hearing
protection before for going into
>> the racks.
> Nobody I know does that, and I certainly don't.
>
You should.
I've ended up with a notch in my hearing from that.
Not good for someone who also does audio work.
1:16 p.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
On 8/14/2012 7:35 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
We used to never wear ear plugs back when I played in bands and went to
shows either. It wasn't "cool". Myself and lots of friends have paid the
price for that. My hearing is hit and miss over 10k now and I have a
slight case of tinnitus in one ear. Length of exposure plays a large
part in damage. Working in a colo with no hearing protection for 8 hours
probably not a good thing.
>> Now days people often put on hearing
protection before for going into
>> the racks.
> Nobody I know does that, and I certainly don't.
>
You should.
I've ended up with a notch in my hearing from that.
Not good for someone who also does audio work.
4:30 p.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
On 08/14/2012 01:16 PM, mc68010 wrote:
We used to never wear ear plugs back when I played in bands and went to
shows either. It wasn't "cool". Myself and lots of friends have paid the
price for that. My hearing is hit and miss over 10k now and I have a
slight case of tinnitus in one ear. Length of exposure plays a large
part in damage. Working in a colo with no hearing protection for 8 hours
probably not a good thing.
Probably not, but I also don't know anyone who works in the machine
room *all day* unless something really BIG has gone wrong. :)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
>> Now days people often put on hearing
protection before for going into
>> the racks.
> Nobody I know does that, and I certainly don't.
>
You should.
I've ended up with a notch in my hearing from that.
Not good for someone who also does audio work.
5:52 p.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
Probably not, but I also don't know anyone who
works in the machine
room *all day* unless something really BIG has gone wrong. :)
Back in the day when I was consulting I would be stuck in the machine room
most of the time if there was no room for me to work other places.
Fortunately most of the noisy stuff was out of there by then and I just
had to complete with the water chiller and the HP boxes.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- I think, therefore I'm dangerous. ------------------------------------------
5:53 p.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
On 14 Aug 2012 at 16:30, Dave McGuire wrote:
Probably not, but I also don't know anyone who
works in the machine
room *all day* unless something really BIG has gone wrong. :)
How many retired high-school band directors can you name with perfect
hearing? They're also exposed intermittently, yet every one that I
know is somewhere between somewhat hearing-impaired to almost deaf as
a tree.
--Chuck
7:03 p.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Chuck Guzis wrote:
How many retired high-school band directors can you
name with perfect
hearing? They're also exposed intermittently, yet every one that I
know is somewhere between somewhat hearing-impaired to almost deaf as
a tree.
Although there is certainly a correlation between hearing
impairment and certain musically related occupations, we
must be careful to avoid assuming causation!
Perhaps hearing impairment causes certain people to go into those jobs!
(or play certain kinds of music)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
(hearing such that singing would be a crime)
8:01 p.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
On 08/14/2012 07:03 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Thinking back to my own high-school band days, I'd think that being
hard of hearing was almost a prerequisite for the job!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
How many retired high-school band directors can
you name with perfect
hearing? They're also exposed intermittently, yet every one that I
know is somewhere between somewhat hearing-impaired to almost deaf as
a tree.
Although there is certainly a correlation between hearing
impairment and certain musically related occupations, we
must be careful to avoid assuming causation!
Perhaps hearing impairment causes certain people to go into those jobs!
(or play certain kinds of music) 
22 Aug
22 Aug
11:05 a.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Hearing loss and associated disorders are quite well studied (and
rightly so). IIRC, it's almost like an integration function: slight
noises over long periods do similar damage to loud noises in only
short periods.
How many Bagpipers can still hear properly in their left ear?
--
Joachim Thiemann :: http://jthiem.bitbucket.org
How many retired high-school band directors can
you name with perfect
hearing? They're also exposed intermittently, yet every one that I
know is somewhere between somewhat hearing-impaired to almost deaf as
a tree.
Although there is certainly a correlation between hearing
impairment and certain musically related occupations, we
must be careful to avoid assuming causation!
Perhaps hearing impairment causes certain people to go into those jobs!
(or play certain kinds of music) 
11:17 a.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Joachim Thiemann
<joachim.thiemann at gmail.com> wrote:
How many Bagpipers can still hear properly in their
left ear?
Left-handed bagpipers?
(Sorry, couldn't resist it...)
Cheers,
Camiel.
14 Aug
14 Aug
8 p.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
On 08/14/2012 05:53 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
That sounded like pretty damning evidence, until it occurred to me
that I know several retired people, from man professions, and they're
ALL deaf as trees. ;)
Either way, though, this doesn't change the fact that I've worked in
datacenter environments off-and-on all my life and have NEVER seen
people using any sort of hearing protection.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Probably
not, but I also don't know anyone who works in the machine
room *all day* unless something really BIG has gone wrong. :)
How many retired high-school band directors can you name with perfect
hearing? They're also exposed intermittently, yet every one that I
know is somewhere between somewhat hearing-impaired to almost deaf as
a tree.
8:47 p.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
On 14 Aug 2012 at 20:00, Dave McGuire wrote:
Either way, though, this doesn't change the fact
that I've worked in
datacenter environments off-and-on all my life and have NEVER seen
people using any sort of hearing protection.
I've never seen people wearing hearing protection at rock concerts
either. The problem is that people tend to ignore insults to their
hearing until it's too late.
So, does anyone know of any publicly-owned hearing aid manufacturers?
Looks like a growth industry...
--Chuck
(with some ringing in his ears)
9:26 p.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
On 08/14/2012 08:47 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Good point.
But then I don't wear hearing protection at concerts because I'm there
to...you know, hear stuff. ;) The frequency response of most hearing
protection mechanisms is nowhere near flat.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Either way,
though, this doesn't change the fact that I've worked in
datacenter environments off-and-on all my life and have NEVER seen
people using any sort of hearing protection.
I've never seen people wearing hearing protection at rock concerts
either. The problem is that people tend to ignore insults to their
hearing until it's too late.
9:59 p.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
On 8/14/2012 6:26 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
The frequency response of most hearing protection
mechanisms is
nowhere near flat. -Dave
Pretty much the same reasoning we all used back in the day. It is your
hearing. Do with it what you want. Just saying as someone that has been
there and done that you may pay a price. Someday. How many concerts have
you come back from with your ears ringing or it being a little harder to
hear for a bit ? I've come out of server rooms the same way as I did
concerts. Not ringing but, yelling at people. I am glad I see people
using hearing protection now. I am pretty sure if I took a SPL reading
in most data centers it would be well over OSHA limits for not wearing
hearing protection .
9:29 p.m.
New subject: Hearing (was Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral)
> [...] I've worked in datacenter environments
off-and-on all my life
> and have NEVER seen people using any sort of hearing protection.
I've used hearing protection occasionally. You might not realize
that's what it is, though, because it's just the my usual closed-ear
headphones with the cord running into my pocket. What's not obvious is
that the cord isn't plugged into anything in my pocket. They advertise
over 30dB of isolation from external noise, and, while I haven't put
decibel meters on them, it would not surprise me if they deliver. I
once used them when the fire alarm went off in the building I was in
and, in the hallway I had to use to leave, it was well above my
threshold of pain. A pair of headphones and it was still loud, but
nowhere near painfully loud.
I've never seen people wearing hearing protection
at rock concerts
either.
Well, I've been to concerts and worn hearing protection, but, unless
you were within a couple of seats of me, you would not have been able
to tell, because what I was using was the in-the-ear kind that's pretty
much invisible unless you're up close.
The problem is that people tend to ignore insults to
their hearing
until it's too late.
_Some_ people. :)
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
3:22 p.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 13 Aug 2012, at 10:14 PM, mc68010 wrote:
Now days people often put on hearing protection before
for going into the racks.
In the 1970s we did as well; sound attenuating headsets even in a room with only a handful
of machines (three DG boxes, a HP2000, a HP3000, maybe a half a dozen disks). The A/C and
fans were the worst, although the switching power supplies in the Novas screamed pretty
badly (one could tell how hard the machine was working by pitch). I had more that a
couple of those headsets rupture their gel onto the side of my head.
I believe the worst noise I ever encountered was from CDC-badged tape drives which sounded
like banshees when rewinding.
--
Dr. Christian Kennedy
chris at mainecoon.com AF6AP | DB00000692 | PG00029419
http://www.mainecoon.com PGP KeyID 108DAB97
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
"Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration..."
4:01 p.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On Aug 14, 2012, at 1:14 AM, mc68010 wrote:
On 8/13/2012 9:28 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
That probably wouldn't sell many computers.
- Dave
With all those 729 magtape drives? Deafening.
-Dave
Now days people often put on hearing protection before for going into the racks. The
density is so much greater now though. It is insanely loud. I just look at these pictures
and wonder how it compares. That is still a lot of fans and machines grinding away.
Everyone always looks so calm and like it isn't in the pictures though. Looks like
they can talk normally and not have to scream.
12:54 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 13 Aug 2012 at 21:08, mc68010 wrote:
How loud was it really ? Say in something like this
http://www.computersciencelab.com/ComputerHistory/HtmlHelp/Images2/IBM
7094.jpg
You have to remember that each one of those drives has a vacuum pump
for the columns. And most likely a fan.
The noise level was a loud-ish "white noise", punctuated by louder
noises, like printers, punches or readers. A lot of people didn't
mind it, but I could only take a few hours at a time before I needed
a break.
--Chuck
10:55 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
All the pictures labeled "Data Center x", except for number 5, were taken in
live data centers. We had enough on the Cupertino site that we could just roll a new
system in and do the shoot. Several of the pictures were actually not staged except for
the models.?
Re. noise in the data center - yes they could be loud. When I was in college in the
mid-1970s I worked as the weekend operator for an IBM 370/155 and DEC-2050. There was a
lot of fan noise. Not so much you couldn't hold a conversation, but you did have to
yell to be around across the machine room. The only piece of equipment we had that had
significant noise reduction was the IBM printer (1403?). The interesting thing about noise
in the machine room is how quiet it is when everything is turned off.?
?
Lee Courtney
________________________________
From: mc68010 <mc68010 at gmail.com>
To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 8/13/2012 8:33 PM, Jason T wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Lee Courtney
<charlesleecourtney at yahoo.com> wrote:
Being a little young to have actually in data centers like these but, having worked with
some of the gear later and worked in more modern data centers, how are they working in all
that noise ? I realize these are ad shots but, all the the normal operation shots make it
look like that is how it was done. Well, minus any women of course.
How loud was it really ? Say in something like this
http://www.computersciencelab.com/ComputerHistory/HtmlHelp/Images2/IBM7094.…
I've never seen much soundproofing on mainframe gear so, I assume it must have been
really loud in there.
I posted some 1980's vintage HP3000 marketing
shots at Flicker: http://flic.kr/s/aHsjBmrAyC
Enjoy!
Lee - thanks for posting these.? Especially love the datacenter scenes
with the gobs of 9-track and pack drives.? And there are some bizarro
terminals (the little ones with the shrouds) that I've never seen
before.
15 Aug
15 Aug
2:15 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 14 Aug 2012 at 7:55, Lee Courtney wrote:
Re. noise in the data center - yes they could be loud.
When I was in
college in the mid-1970s I worked as the weekend operator for an IBM
370/155 and DEC-2050. There was a lot of fan noise. Not so much you
couldn't hold a conversation, but you did have to yell to be around
across the machine room. The only piece of equipment we had that had
significant noise reduction was the IBM printer (1403?). The
interesting thing about noise in the machine room is how quiet it is
when everything is turned off.?
In Sunnyvale, when all the construction outfits were tearing up
orchards and fields and pouring concrete tilt-ups, power failures
were frequent. SVLOPS didn't have a backup generator, so when the
power went out, it was just the emergency lighting and the groaning
of both the people trying to get work done and the CEs (for the work
they'd have to do when power came back up). Otherwise, yes, deathly,
eerily silent. It generally took the better part of several hours to
get the systems back up. They were not tolerant of power outages.
I was reminded of this today, when a tree fell across a line coming
out of the substation up the road. When the power was restored,
everything came back up with scarcely a hiccup.
Times have certainly changed...
--Chuck
14 Aug
14 Aug
11:10 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Lee Courtney <charlesleecourtney at yahoo.com> wrote:
I posted some 1980's vintage HP3000 marketing
shots at
Flicker:?http://flic.kr/s/aHsjBmrAyC
Enjoy!
Did indeed! Makes my HP3000s "feel" proud ;-)
Cheers,
Lyle
--
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
15 Aug
15 Aug
8:03 a.m.
New subject: HP3000 Marketing Collateral
On 12 August 2012 20:13, Lee Courtney <charlesleecourtney at yahoo.com> wrote:
I posted some 1980's vintage HP3000 marketing
shots at Flicker: http://flic.kr/s/aHsjBmrAyC
Enjoy!
Thanks for these - most enjoyable. I've left a couple of comments on
one of the pics. :?)
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
13 Aug
13 Aug
12:31 p.m.
Ironically, one of the *very* recent last uses of
punch
cards was for
the USDA, for cotton bales.
How recent is *very*? IIRC, it was in the mid '90s
that the "electronic warehouse receipt" took the place
of the punched cards. Or were they still being used
inside the USDA after the gins and warehouses had gone
to an EDI approach?
BLS
12 Aug
12 Aug
1:28 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of William Donzelli
Sent: 12 August 2012 17:43
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: To all with interest in preservation
I believe that the loss of the knowledge on how to run these machines would
be more significant in the loss of access to data.
I think though that for many machine your recent
comparison
with Inca
(was it Inca?) pottery and other archaeology is
not especially
relevant.
Then you missed the point. And no, I was the one that
compared it early archeologists trashing village sites to get
to the kings, and how they destroyed sites that we really
wish we had today.
I doubt
if we have any working drawings, or other written
documentation on how
these machines work.
Correct, and we wish we did. Archaeology is, honestly, mostly
educated guesses on what little hard evidence we have.
For many computers such as the IBM 1130, the
PDP-8 and even the ICT
1301 we have copious documentation, drawings, records,
photographs and
software. We understand the technology and
contraction of these
machines in intimate detail.
No we do not.
Certain information normally does not show up in the
information you list. Specifically, things related to the
actually manufacture of the machines. Very little
documentation points out how the machines were built,
preferred vendors, subtle (or not so subtle) design flaws,
normal wear during expected lifetime, and so forth. For
example - can you tell me what brands of tubes IBM used in
their mainframes, and why RCA somehow was dropped from their
preferred vendors list? Why did Tung Sol and GE beat them?
And who made the tube sockets? Amphenol? EBY? AMP? Cinch? Who
was preferred there?
Who cares, you ask - such a minor issue, right?
Well, this is where you missed the point. We do not know what
future scholars will be interested in studying with these
machines. In the future, when the architecture and software
of some machine are pretty well studied out, there will be
people looking to dig deeper, and learn in depth about things
today we see as mundane. But, by using machines, you will
destroy somethings that could be very valuable evidence to
these future scholars.
Given
sufficient funds we could, as with the Manchester Mk1 (Baby)
produce modern replicas of these machines. Some such as the
IBM 1130,
would be expensive to replicate as it used IBM
SLT "Hybrid"
circuits
and cartridge disks, but I am sure there is
enough information
available to clone the thing.
Clones are never perfect in the real world. These clones
would not be able to capture many of the subtle nuances of
the manufacturing processes of old. In many cases, clone
makers take shortcuts, and may not document these properly,
nor understand the consequences.
I would concede this point if care was taken to
preserve
machines that
were not run. However in my experience machines
that are
not used, and
considered as "un-useable" are often
not looked after either.
Sort of like most machines in private hands, right? You are
including those in your survey, right?
Yes, there are some museums that do not take care of
things,
just like many collectors. But, if you look at the big
players in the computer museum field, you will find that they
keep their holdings in secure, climate controlled areas, and
as resources become available, proper stabilization is done.
But their seems to be this problem that the museums that are
not caring for their holdings somehow give ALL museums this
bad reputation. That is not right.
In my experience of travelling the world this seems to be the case. I have
never visited a museum where the on-display but non-operational artefacts
appear to be given any significant care and attention. Some of the places I
have visited have, such as the Boston Computer Museum have closed, but
others are still open.
The problem is that, as we agree, preserving a computer isn't trivial or
cheap, there isn't the money. Given that volunteer staff are hard to come
by, yet they are the mainstay of preservation in many museums, what
incentive is there for any one to participate in a museum where everything
is "dead", and preserved just in case some one wants to come along later and
worrying about the type of valve in it, or investigate the historic timings
of DTL logic. Realistically the only way that 99% of the computers in
museums get any attention is when they are used.
Personally if I was asked to mothball machines I would want a proper salary
whereas at present my labours are free(ish).
I believe that
it
needs to be an active process and the condition of the
artefacts must
be monitored and recorded, and if decay occurs
action taken.
Conservation 101, first day of class.
--
Will
2:27 p.m.
On 12/08/2012 18:43, William Donzelli wrote:
No you can't. You can't learn how to load a card reader, disk pack or
even line printer paper on any simulator I know of.
--
Dave Wade G4UGM
Illegitimi Non Carborundum
*** For the Hams on the list three special event stations in Manchester now operational
*****
**** GB2012MV, GB2012MS and GB2012MW. See http://GB2012MS.COM/ for links and schedules.
***
I believe that
the loss of the knowledge on how to run these machines would
be more significant in the loss of access to data.
That is why simulators are so
important. You can get most of the feel
of the machine from the comfort of your own home.
--
Will
4:03 p.m.
That is why
simulators are so important. You can get most of the feel
of the machine from the comfort of your own home.
--
Will
No you can't. You can't learn how to load a card reader, disk pack or even
line printer paper on any simulator I know of. 
13 Aug
13 Aug
2:13 p.m.
That is
why simulators are so important. You can get most of the feel
of the machine from the comfort of your own home.
--
Will
No you can't. You can't learn how to load a card reader, disk pack or even
line printer paper on any simulator I know of.
12 Aug
12 Aug
3:14 p.m.
I believe that the loss of the knowledge on how
to run these machines would
be more significant in the loss of access to data.
That is why simulators are so important. You can get most of the feel
of the machine from the comfort of your own home.
4:14 p.m.
On 12/08/2012 20:14, Tony Duell wrote:
Every time I'be both seem an
emulator of a chassic machine (runinng on a
friend's machine, obvious) and also run the rela hardware myself, I feel
the emultor doens't come close to the experinece of actually running the
classic computer.
Maybe that wil lchange, but I doubt it...
I agree, although running Hercules on a real 3270 comes close to the end
user experience, but its then an artefact that I am using.
I was thinking of using the Raspberry PI to try and get closer to the
real machine feel, but I would need to manufacture, or otherwise obtain,
a keyboard with 24 PF keys and in the UK they cost almost as much as a
real 3270...
I believe that the loss of the knowledge on how to run
these machines would
be more significant in the loss of access to data.
That is why simulators are so
important. You can get most of the feel
of the machine from the comfort of your own home. -tony
--
Dave Wade G4UGM
Illegitimi Non Carborundum
*** For the Hams on the list three special event stations in Manchester now operational
*****
**** GB2012MV, GB2012MS and GB2012MW. See http://GB2012MS.COM/ for links and schedules.
***
4:54 p.m.
Every time I'be both seem an emulator of a chassic
machine [...] and
also run the rela hardware myself, I feel the emultor doens't come
close to the experinece of actually running the classic computer.
In some respects, of course, it can't. In other respects, it can't
until VR technology gets a lot better.
However, they serve useful purposes nevertheless. In particular, they
can give more of a taste of the experience than most people are likely
to get any other way. And to someone who's got the interest potential
but nothing to spark it, it can be that spark.
And, for a hands-on museum, a replica panel backed by an emulator will
be close enough for a lot of people, better in that it's a lot easier
to fix and/or replace if it gets heavy and/or careless use (I'm
thinking schoolkids).
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
8:23 p.m.
Grilled-cheese disk pack, anyone?:)
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-08-12, at 4:54 PM, Mouse <mouse at rodents-montreal.org> wrote:
Every time
I'be both seem an emulator of a chassic machine [...] and
also run the rela hardware myself, I feel the emultor doens't come
close to the experinece of actually running the classic computer.
In some respects, of course, it can't. In other respects, it can't
until VR technology gets a lot better.
However, they serve useful purposes nevertheless. In particular, they
can give more of a taste of the experience than most people are likely
to get any other way. And to someone who's got the interest potential
but nothing to spark it, it can be that spark.
And, for a hands-on museum, a replica panel backed by an emulator will
be close enough for a lot of people, better in that it's a lot easier
to fix and/or replace if it gets heavy and/or careless use (I'm
thinking schoolkids).
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
13 Aug
13 Aug
2:24 p.m.
Every time I'be both seem an emulator of a
chassic machine [...] and
also run the real hardware myself, I feel the emultor doens't come
close to the experinece of actually running the classic computer.
In some respects, of course, it can't. In other respects, it can't
until VR technology gets a lot better.
However, they serve useful purposes nevertheless. In particular, they
I do not dispute that. THey are however a pale initation of the real
thing. Useful, but by no means the whole stroy.
can give more of a taste of the experience than most
people are likely
to get any other way. And to someone who's got the interest potential
but nothing to spark it, it can be that spark.
Sure. But given that most peole can run the simualtors at home if they
want to, there is little reason for museums to show them (in the same
way that sicne anyone can buy a book of reproductions of Old Master
paintings, there is litle point in having an art gallery that just
displays such books ]1]). The museum should show more -- like the real
machine in operation
[1] Note that I have said nothign about such books (or indeed simulators)
being sold in the appropriate museum shop. That is clearly a Good Thing.
And, for a hands-on museum, a replica panel backed by an emulator will
be close enough for a lot of people, better in that it's a lot easier
to fix and/or replace if it gets heavy and/or careless use (I'm
thinking schoolkids).
Wby not replcia controls (the bit that is going to get the heavy-handed
interaction) backed by the real machine? Having seen an R-pi at the
weekend, I know hwich out of that and a PDP11 (saY) I'd rather have to
keep running.
-tony
4:59 p.m.
And, for a
hands-on museum, a replica panel backed by an emulator
will be close enough for a lot of people, better in that [...]
Wby not replcia
controls (the bit that is going to get the
heavy-handed interaction) backed by the real machine? Having seen an R-pi at the weekend, I know hwich out
of that and a
PDP11 (saY) I'd rather have to keep running.
Yes, I daresay.
Personally, if I were in charge of keeping it running, I'd rather have
the simulator. Not because it's easier to repair the hardware (on
that, I agree with you), but because the exact hardware is irrelevant:
I'm reasonably confident I can, if necessary, build a new simulator on
whatever the beagleboard/pi/etc du jour is. Until and unless it's no
longer possible to get logic-level inputs and outputs, I am confident I
can port a simulator to whatever I need to.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
14 Aug
14 Aug
4:20 p.m.
Personally, if I were in charge of keeping it running,
I'd rather have
the simulator. Not because it's easier to repair the hardware (on
that, I agree with you), but because the exact hardware is irrelevant:
I'm reasonably confident I can, if necessary, build a new simulator on
whatever the beagleboard/pi/etc du jour is. Until and unless it's no
longer possible to get logic-level inputs and outputs, I am confident I
can port a simulator to whatever I need to.
Hmm... My issue would be wit hthe interface to the 'panel'.
If you were doign this 10 years ago, most likely the simulator would run
on a PC, and you'd interface the panel to the parallel port. Possibly
bit-banging a serial data stream over a couple of the pins to talk to
shift registers driving the blinkenlights.
Today, msot likely you'd interface that panel to USB. I suspect that the
changes necessary (both hardware and software) to move from 'bit banged
on a parelel port; to 'USB' are considerable. Possible but nto trivial.
I suspect hat keeping the rela machine running is a lot easier.
-tony
9:24 p.m.
> Personally, if I were in charge of keeping it
running, I'd rather
> have the simulator. Not because it's easier to repair the hardware
> [...], but because the exact hardware is irrelevant: I'm reasonably
> confident I can, if necessary, build a new simulator on whatever the
> beagleboard/pi/etc du jour is.
Hmm... My issue would be wit hthe interface to the
'panel'.
If you were doign this 10 years ago, most likely the
simulator would
run on a PC, and you'd interface the panel to the parallel port.
That's what I'd do today.
Today, msot likely you'd interface that panel to
USB.
Maybe most people would. I wouldn't.
I suspect that the changes necessary (both hardware
and software) to
move from 'bit banged on a parelel port; to 'USB' are considerable.
If the simulator is properly designed, it's just a matter of ripping
off one glue layer and dropping in another.
If the simulator isn't properly designed in that respect, it soon would
be after I got hold of it. :)
I suspect hat keeping the rela machine running is a
lot easier.
For you, it probably would be. Hence my "Personally".
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
20 Aug
20 Aug
5:23 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Tony Duell
Sent: 13 August 2012 19:24
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: To all with interest in preservation
Having seen an R-pi at the
weekend, I know hwich out of that and a PDP11 (saY) I'd
rather have to
keep running.
Having installed my (currently case-less) R-Pi on top of the Sun U5, VAX
4K and Sun U2
pile, I know it's (non-existent) rack won't crush my other three
machines. It's also
going to consume virtually no power so I can leave it running 24x7 with
no issues. If I
can find the time to actually spare to recover the VAX 4K's system disk,
it's also
(probably) going to be much quicker to cluster it to a simulated VAX on
the R-Pi and
fix it up that way. (I could use a VAX in the garage to do that but I'd
have to get it out
first and set it up: given that the bottleneck is the lack of "tuits"
rather than hardware
and that the end goal is to have the real VAX running, I'm going to
claim that this is fine :-)).
Briefly looking at the R-Pi, it at least party meets your goals of
maintainable. The hardware
schematics are online, the parts are (at least mostly available): the
parenthetical qualification
is because I don't know whether the broadcom chip is available (I guess
not ine onesies ...). I
also don't have the kit here to swap that one out.
Antonio
arcarlini at iee.org
21 Aug
21 Aug
1:53 p.m.
Briefly looking at the R-Pi, it at least party meets
your goals of
maintainable. The hardware
It's basically 2 chips IIRC (the main one, which is in fact a multichip
mnodule) and the ethernet interface. So 'repair's is likely to involve
replacign that main IC, in a BGA packaeg :-( If yoou can get one.
AFIAK you can't get a fulldata sheet for that main 'IC'. Some data has
been released, but there is no full specification of the graphics processor.
schematics are online, the parts are (at least mostly
available): the
parenthetical qualification
is because I don't know whether the broadcom chip is available (I guess
not ine onesies ...). I
also don't have the kit here to swap that one out.
That is the problem. I don't yet have BGA rewok facilities either. The
user port (a 26 pin header) is wired stright to that IC, which strikes me
as poor design... One slip and you are looking for an very hard to find
IC and trying to work out how to solder it on.
-tony
2:38 p.m.
On 08/21/2012 07:53 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
The r-pi is both a computer, and a component.
Even if you had BGA rework possibilities, repair would be costlier than replacement.
There is such a thing as economics...
Jos
Briefly
looking at the R-Pi, it at least party meets your goals of
maintainable. The hardware
It's basically 2 chips IIRC (the main one, which is
in fact a multichip
mnodule) and the ethernet interface. So 'repair's is likely to involve
replacign that main IC, in a BGA packaeg :-( If yoou can get one.
AFIAK you can't get a fulldata sheet for that main 'IC'. Some data has
been released, but there is no full specification of the graphics processor.
schematics are online, the parts are (at least
mostly available): the
parenthetical qualification
is because I don't know whether the broadcom chip is available (I guess
not ine onesies ...). I
also don't have the kit here to swap that one out.
That is the problem. I
don't yet have BGA rewok facilities either. The
user port (a 26 pin header) is wired stright to that IC, which strikes me
as poor design... One slip and you are looking for an very hard to find
IC and trying to work out how to solder it on.
-tony
22 Aug
22 Aug
3:06 p.m.
The r-pi is both a computer, and a component.
Even if you had BGA rework possibilities, repair would be costlier than replacement.
There is such a thing as economics...
That is one thing I dislkike about it... You are talking to the person
who bought a Myford lathe to repair a cheap photocopier :-)
(tongue-in-cheek, but only just :-)).
More seriosuly, I do wonder how long Rpis will be available for. I
dislike designing round a 'component' and then finding it's unavaialble
when I actually wanty to make more of my designs.
-tony
12 Aug
12 Aug
2:23 p.m.
Just as a point of trivia, the Boston Computer Museum is a direct
ancestor of CHM. Look at CHMs internal history. Makes a fascinating
read akin to the Israelites and Exodus.
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 18:28 +0100, Dave wrote:
I would say most machines in private hands, but in this world of limited
funds and resources personal preservation is the only way many things will
be retained.
Certainly in the UK no cash in 99% of the cases except for a small number of
sites.
-- Colin
-----Original
Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of William Donzelli
Sent: 12 August 2012 17:43
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: To all with interest in preservation
I believe that the loss of the knowledge on how to run these machines would
be more significant in the loss of access to data.
I think though that for many machine your recent
comparison
with Inca
(was it Inca?) pottery and other archaeology is
not especially
relevant.
Then you missed the point. And no, I was the one that
compared it early archeologists trashing village sites to get
to the kings, and how they destroyed sites that we really
wish we had today.
I doubt
if we have any working drawings, or other written
documentation on how
these machines work.
Correct, and we wish we did. Archaeology is, honestly, mostly
educated guesses on what little hard evidence we have.
For many computers such as the IBM 1130, the
PDP-8 and even the ICT
1301 we have copious documentation, drawings, records,
photographs and
software. We understand the technology and
contraction of these
machines in intimate detail.
No we do not.
Certain information normally does not show up in the
information you list. Specifically, things related to the
actually manufacture of the machines. Very little
documentation points out how the machines were built,
preferred vendors, subtle (or not so subtle) design flaws,
normal wear during expected lifetime, and so forth. For
example - can you tell me what brands of tubes IBM used in
their mainframes, and why RCA somehow was dropped from their
preferred vendors list? Why did Tung Sol and GE beat them?
And who made the tube sockets? Amphenol? EBY? AMP? Cinch? Who
was preferred there?
Who cares, you ask - such a minor issue, right?
Well, this is where you missed the point. We do not know what
future scholars will be interested in studying with these
machines. In the future, when the architecture and software
of some machine are pretty well studied out, there will be
people looking to dig deeper, and learn in depth about things
today we see as mundane. But, by using machines, you will
destroy somethings that could be very valuable evidence to
these future scholars.
Given
sufficient funds we could, as with the Manchester Mk1 (Baby)
produce modern replicas of these machines. Some such as the
IBM 1130,
would be expensive to replicate as it used IBM
SLT "Hybrid"
circuits
and cartridge disks, but I am sure there is
enough information
available to clone the thing.
Clones are never perfect in the real world. These clones
would not be able to capture many of the subtle nuances of
the manufacturing processes of old. In many cases, clone
makers take shortcuts, and may not document these properly,
nor understand the consequences.
I would concede this point if care was taken to
preserve
machines that
were not run. However in my experience machines
that are
not used, and
considered as "un-useable" are often
not looked after either.
Sort of like most machines in private hands, right? You are
including those in your survey, right?
Yes, there are some museums that do not take care
of things,
just like many collectors. But, if you look at the big
players in the computer museum field, you will find that they
keep their holdings in secure, climate controlled areas, and
as resources become available, proper stabilization is done.
But their seems to be this problem that the museums that are
not caring for their holdings somehow give ALL museums this
bad reputation. That is not right.
In my experience of travelling the world this seems to be the case. I have
never visited a museum where the on-display but non-operational artefacts
appear to be given any significant care and attention. Some of the places I
have visited have, such as the Boston Computer Museum have closed, but
others are still open.
The problem is that, as we agree, preserving a computer isn't trivial or
cheap, there isn't the money. Given that volunteer staff are hard to come
by, yet they are the mainstay of preservation in many museums, what
incentive is there for any one to participate in a museum where everything
is "dead", and preserved just in case some one wants to come along later and
worrying about the type of valve in it, or investigate the historic timings
of DTL logic. Realistically the only way that 99% of the computers in
museums get any attention is when they are used.
Personally if I was asked to mothball machines I would want a proper salary
whereas at present my labours are free(ish).
I believe
that it
needs to be an active process and the condition of the
artefacts must
be monitored and recorded, and if decay occurs
action taken.
Conservation 101, first day of class.
--
Will
3:08 p.m.
Certain information normally does not show up in the
information you
list. Specifically, things related to the actually manufacture of the
machines. Very little documentation points out how the machines were
built, preferred vendors, subtle (or not so subtle) design flaws,
normal wear during expected lifetime, and so forth. For example - can
you tell me what brands of tubes IBM used in their mainframes, and why
RCA somehow was dropped from their preferred vendors list? Why did
Tung Sol and GE beat them? And who made the tube sockets? Amphenol?
EBY? AMP? Cinch? Who was preferred there?
Quite how running a machine destroys such infromation is beyond me. I
guess you're arguing that if a compoennt fails, then it will be
replaced, and thus what was there originally is lost.
Firstly, you have no way of knowign that hte machine _when you get it_ is
as it left the factory. Components will fail over the life of the
machine, they will be repalced. Perhaps not for an IBM, but certainly for
DEC and HP, a lot of techncial users did 'self maintenance' They will
have fitted whatever was to hand that works in a lot of cases. Certianyl
nto a part from the 'right vendor'.
Secondly, If you are running the machine _now_ and ap art fails, yuo
rpobably do repalce it with somthing non-original. But you log the fact,
you log what the old part was exactly ,and you keep said part, tagged
with where it came from. Then in the future you still ahve that
infromation.
-tony
9:46 p.m.
In article <CANij+dcA7gS+X=6wFMTRZ-8T0vL6NLTSjr6tBWVn2GAZddsYgA at mail.gmail.com>,
William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> writes:
Yep. Even for things where we do have lots of docs, i.e. Tektronix
gear, you will see things like such-and-such an IC is a linear
amplifier and the vendor is.... Tektronix. With no alternate
manufacturer part number listed.
Great! So how the hell do we know what to use to replace such a
failed linear amplifier?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book
<http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
For many
computers such as the IBM 1130, the PDP-8 and even the ICT 1301 we
have copious documentation, drawings, records, photographs and software. We
understand the technology and contraction of these machines in intimate
detail.
No we do not.
Certain information normally does not show up in the information you
list. [...]
10:15 p.m.
Yep. Even for things where we do have lots of docs,
i.e. Tektronix
gear, you will see things like such-and-such an IC is a linear
amplifier and the vendor is.... Tektronix. With no alternate
manufacturer part number listed.
Great! So how the hell do we know what to use to replace such a
failed linear amplifier?
This problem is really not a whole lot different from an ASIC. Mystery
black box, basically.
--
Will
13 Aug
13 Aug
2:55 p.m.
Yep. Even for things where we do have lots of docs,
i.e. Tektronix
gear, you will see things like such-and-such an IC is a linear
amplifier and the vendor is.... Tektronix. With no alternate
manufacturer part number listed.
Tektronix (and HP, and doubtless many others) did make custom analogue
ICs. I don't know who actually fabbed them, but they were a Tektroix
design, only sold to Tektronix.
So yes, that's a custom part. It probably isn't a standard part that's
been selected for some parameter. It happens. There are custom ICs in a
lot of machines, what of it?
Great! So how the hell do we know what to use to
replace such a
failed linear amplifier?
The sam as what you repalce a failed gate array chip with. The original
part, if you vcan get it (maybe off a dead board with a different fault).
Or you have to spend many enjoyable weeks workign out what it really has
to do and then design a replaement. FOr high-seped analogue, that is 'fun'...
-tony
12 Aug
12 Aug
12:58 p.m.
On 2012-08-12, at 11:18 AM, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
The problem is that the document does not take the effects of leaving it idle into
account. The turned off vs. turned on state have to be compared. You can take some
details, but it has to be considered as an entire system. Unanticipated reactions are
entirely possible. Look at galvanic corrosion. The behavior of the two metals in contact
differs greatly from them being separate. There can be many factors involved in the entire
system that invalidate conservation data on the individual components.
That I think is a matter of debate. A reboot can undo many changes. It remains to
be seen the effects on the hardware in their totality.
There's a
lot to that report. It is also only dealing with semiconductor devices. While
semiconductors are a crucial component, they are not the only one.
Yes, but it is basically the first thing I found (and being tired
after going to the Kagan memorial, I was not about to make a big
project about it). The point is that Ian wanted a citation, so I gave
him one, in less than a minute's worth of Google.
Yes, we need more data on this. But, one way to certainly taint that
data is to keep using the materials (keep running the machines).
How else are you to compare the effects of running the machine vs. leaving it off?
If nothing else, the machine still has mechanical parts. When not run, these parts seize
and corrode.
For the time
being, until we can
have our perfect virtual reality simulators, having a running
machine
in a raised floor room is the best we can do, but it uses the artifact
and changes what it is (I am not sure I want to get into a "historic
fabric" fight with anyone at this point). Those changes can not be
reversed, no matter what anyone says.
This is why it is good to have machines that are in
museums, preserved
and not run at all. Everyone, please do not hate on the museums that
preserve the machines by not running them - they have a point for
doing so.
I'm not hating them. I think both approaches are important. My main point is that this
isn't an easy question to answer. Mistakes are going to be made, it's an
impossibility to avoid them. We have more than a century of conserving ancient artifacts
under our belts, and we're still learning how best to preserve them - computers are no
different.
I just think that we can't afford to cut ourselves off from the software component of
a system. Emulators are helpful, but emulators have to come from somewhere. They come from
studying running machines, not static displays.
--------
Paul Anderson -- VE3HOP
1:14 p.m.
The problem is that the document does not take the
effects of leaving it idle into account.
That specific document*, yes - but I am sure with a bit more Google
you can find studies concerning semiconductor shelf life as well.
(find it yourselves)
How else are you to compare the effects of running the
machine vs. leaving it off
Well, having a machine that was taken from active service and then
placed in a museum would probably be a pretty good control subject.
There, you get the history of a machine, with a portion where it is in
everyday active service, then a clear demarcation where that active
service stops.
If nothing else, the machine still has mechanical
parts. When not run, these parts seize and corrode.
Part of the art and science of conservation deals with this. And in a
proper museum environment, corrosion is very much slowed down.
That I think is a matter of debate. A reboot can undo
many changes. It remains to be seen the effects on the hardware in their totality.
Historic fabric can not be mended.
I'm not hating them.
Not you, but many on this list are.
I think both approaches are important. My main point is
that this isn't an easy question to answer. Mistakes are going to be made, it's an
impossibility to avoid them. We have more than a century of conserving ancient artifacts
under our belts, and we're still learning how best to preserve them - computers are no
different.
I also think that both approaches are good. But the idea is to
actually TAKE both approaches, and value them.
I just think that we can't afford to cut ourselves
off from the software component of a system. Emulators are helpful, but emulators have to
come from somewhere. They come from studying running machines, not static displays.
Well, given time, I think there will be a decent emulator for almost
every significant computer system out there. SimH, dtCyber, MAME, and
the list goes on...
* Remember, this is just the first document I grabbed, in order to
fulfill the hungry. I did it to point out that the information is out
there and easy to find. I can not say if it is a great document to
show or not.
--
Will
1:33 p.m.
I did run across the Computer Conservation Society in the UK.
The bottom of their links page looks to have some good sources:
http://www.computerconservationsociety.org/links.htm
--------
Paul Anderson -- VE3HOP
On 2012-08-12, at 1:14 PM, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
The problem is
that the document does not take the effects of leaving it idle into account.
That specific document*, yes - but I am sure with a bit more Google
you can find studies concerning semiconductor shelf life as well.
(find it yourselves)
1:38 p.m.
Just wanted to add, this is an excellent article by Doron Swade:
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/CCS/res/res01.htm#f
--------
Paul Anderson -- VE3HOP
On 2012-08-12, at 1:14 PM, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
The problem is
that the document does not take the effects of leaving it idle into account.
That specific document*, yes - but I am sure with a bit more Google
you can find studies concerning semiconductor shelf life as well.
(find it yourselves)
How else are you to compare the effects of
running the machine vs. leaving it off
Well, having a machine that was taken from active service and then
placed in a museum would probably be a pretty good control subject.
There, you get the history of a machine, with a portion where it is in
everyday active service, then a clear demarcation where that active
service stops.
If nothing else, the machine still has mechanical
parts. When not run, these parts seize and corrode.
Part of the art and science of conservation deals with this. And in a
proper museum environment, corrosion is very much slowed down.
That I think is a matter of debate. A reboot can
undo many changes. It remains to be seen the effects on the hardware in their totality.
Historic fabric can not be mended.
I'm not hating them.
Not you, but many on this list are.
I think both approaches are important. My main
point is that this isn't an easy question to answer. Mistakes are going to be made,
it's an impossibility to avoid them. We have more than a century of conserving ancient
artifacts under our belts, and we're still learning how best to preserve them -
computers are no different.
I also think that both approaches are good. But the idea is to
actually TAKE both approaches, and value them.
I just think that we can't afford to cut
ourselves off from the software component of a system. Emulators are helpful, but
emulators have to come from somewhere. They come from studying running machines, not
static displays.
Well, given time, I think there will be a decent emulator for almost
every significant computer system out there. SimH, dtCyber, MAME, and
the list goes on...
* Remember, this is just the first document I grabbed, in order to
fulfill the hungry. I did it to point out that the information is out
there and easy to find. I can not say if it is a great document to
show or not.
--
Will
4347
days inactive
4357
days old
72 comments
28 participants
participants (28)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
arcarlini＠iee.org -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
blstuart＠bellsouth.net -
cclist＠sydex.com -
charlesleecourtney＠yahoo.com -
chris＠mainecoon.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
colineby＠isallthat.com -
cube1＠charter.net -
dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com -
doc＠vaxen.net -
fraveydank＠gmail.com -
iamcamiel＠gmail.com -
jdr_use＠bluewin.ch -
jimpdavis＠gorge.net -
joachim.thiemann＠gmail.com -
lbickley＠bickleywest.com -
legalize＠xmission.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mc68010＠gmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
silent700＠gmail.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
wackyvorlon＠me.com -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com